HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-19; City Council; Minutes (2)CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
SPECIAL MEETING
Faraday Administration Offices
1635 Faraday Avenue
Room 173-A
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
11 a.m. to conclusion of business at approximately 1 p.m.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER: The Mayor called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL: Lewis, Kulchin, Hall, Packard and Blackburn
1. Council discussion on Council Member reports on regional roles and assignments, as
necessary, including:
Blackburn Buena Vista Lagoon JPC
Chamber of Commerce Liaison
City/School Committee
Encina Joint Powers (JAC)
Encina Wastewater Authority
North County Dispatch Joint Powers Authority (alternate)
San Diego County Water Authority Board of Directors
Council Member Blackburn gave no report.
Packard Buena Vista Lagoon JPC
City/School Committee
North County Transit District Board of Directors
*North County Transit District Planning Committee
League of California Cities - SD Division
North County Dispatch Joint Powers Authority
Council Member Packard noted that he will fly to Sacramento to present the
League of California Cities Division position on pension reform to the State
Legislature.
Hall Chamber of Commerce Liaison
SAN DAG Board of Directors
SANDAG Executive Committee
SAN DAG Transportation Committee
Council Member Hall stated that SANDAG will work on a financial update this
week. He also stated SANDAG committees will earmark monies for work on I-5.
Kulchin CalCoast Board of Directors
Carlsbad ConVis (alternate)
Encina Joint Powers (JAC)
Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA)
Special Meeting of Carlsbad City Council, January 19, 2010
North County Transit District (alternate)
*San Diego Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE)
SANDAG Board of Directors (2nd alternate)
*SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Committee
Mayor Pro Tem Kulchin gave no report.
Lewis LAFCO Cities Advisory Committee
North County Mayors and Managers
SANDAG (1st alternate)
San Diego County Water Authority Board of Directors
Mayor Lewis reported that Metropolitan Water Board will hold a series of Public
Workshops regarding an increase in their water rates.
Requests to Speak on a listed item: A total of 15 minutes is provided. Please submit a
speaker card indicating the item you wish to address. Comments/speakers are limited to three
(3) minutes each.
There was no public comment.
2. Receive a presentation from Carlsbad staff regarding the Carlsbad Residential Traffic
Management Program. Discuss and direct staff accordingly.
City Engineer/Traffic Engineer Bob Johnson and Traffic Signal Systems Engineer Doug
Bilse gave the report. (All materials and handouts are on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.) Mr. Johnson gave the background regarding the Residential Traffic
Management Plan (CRTMP) of May 2001. He stated that the 2001 plan called out three
phases: I. Neighborhood, II. Study and III. Implementation.
Mr. Bilse discussed proposed changes to the 2001 Plan. He noted that the changes are
as follows: Phase I - Enforcement and Education, Phase II - Low Cost Alternatives
(Engineering), Phase III - Traffic Calming Concept Plan, Phase IV - Traffic Calming
Design and Construction. Mr. Bilse noted the criteria, approval and toolboxes needed
for each proposed Phase. He emphasized that the effected residents would approve
Phase II concept plans and property owners would approve Phase III Traffic Calming
Plans.
Council discussion ensued regarding Assessment Districts for project funding in Phase
IV. City Manager Lisa Hildabrand stated that, at the Phase III stage, staff prepare a
report on funding feasibility. Council Members asked for options regarding the funding
of CRTMP projects.
Mr. Bilse described the pros and cons of speed tables and speed lumps.
Mr. Bilse noted that the Pilot Program would develop a low cost alternative plan using
proposed revisions to CRTMP; possibly using stop signs and speed tables. He also
stated that a study would be conducted of before and after effectiveness of the new
measures.
Special Meeting of Carlsbad City Council, January 19, 2010
By consensus, Council agreed to postpone CRTMP revisions while staff conducts a
pilot program using Donna Drive and Sierra Morena Avenue projects.
The Mayor called a recess at 12:05 p.m. and Council and the Mayor returned at 12:18
p.m.
3. Receive a presentation regarding the City's State of Effectiveness and the results of the
Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey. Discuss and direct staff accordingly. (All materials
and handouts for this item are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Josh Williams of [bw] Research Partnership was introduced by Management Analyst
Christine Reuss. Mr. Williams explained the results of the 2009 Public Opinion Survey
Report. Mr. Williams noted that the City's ratings have, overall, remained high. He
noted that economic concerns and new residents have somewhat affected the survey.
Fire Division Chief Chris Heiser and Management Analyst Lolly Sangster gave a report
on the State of the City's Effectiveness. Council asked questions regarding SWAT call
outs, participation numbers for arts programs, costs for parks maintenance,
communications and details regarding traffic management/transportation.
4. Discussion of Council efficiency and effectiveness including impact of regional
assignments with regard to contact with other Council members, decision and
policymaking, serving the community and effective methods of feedback.
There was no report on this item.
5. City Manager review of goal and major project tracking report and update discussion of
Council goal setting process and discussion of capacity and effectiveness in the delivery
of City processes and services.
There was no report on this item.
6. Discussion of feedback, communications or correspondence on issues for the good of
the community, including directions to the City Manager or City Attorney, as appropriate,
for the scheduling of items for future agendas, workshops or study sessions.
There was no report on this item.
Requests to Speak: Continuation of Requests to Speak (if necessary)
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned to a closed session in Room 150 of 1635 Faraday, Carlsbad, CA. at 1:18
p.m.
Special Meeting of Carlsbad City Council, January 19, 2010
'.(/VUULorraine M. Wood, Certified KfiunicFpal Clerk
CITY CLBRK
For the Information of the
CITYCOUNCIL
December 11, 2009 Asgt CM C_
Qg.te fe[ hfeity Manager
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: City Engineer
REVISIONS TO THE CARLSBAD RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CRTMP)
Request: Provide direction to staff for processing changes to the CRTMP.
After two prior meetings, by a 4-0 vote at their December 7, 2009 meeting, the Traffic Safety
Commission recommended revisions to the CRTMP. A procedure was established by the City
Council in 2001 to initiate changes when they formally adopted the CRTMP with Resolution No.
2001-139. The procedure states that upon a recommendation for changes to the CRTMP by the
Traffic Safety Commission, the City Council will review and approve/modify the recommendations.
Among the recommended revisions is the use of residential stop signs as a cost effective solution to
traffic calming. Also recommended was a new threshold for funding the more expensive traffic
calming measures. Two new "tools" for the traffic calming toolbox recommended by the Commission
include speed tables and speed lumps. The CRTMP is also recommended to include four phases,
one more than the current three-phase program.
Two neighborhoods, Sierra Morena Avenue and also Donna Drive, are currently being processed for
traffic calming under the current program. However, they have been waiting for the City Council to
approve revisions to the CRTMP before they are able to move forward to final completion of a
design concept. Representatives from both neighborhoods attended the November and/or
December Traffic Safety Commission meetings to express comments and support of the revisions.
The support is not unanimous among all residents in both neighborhoods, however.
Upon your direction, staff is prepared to provide you a briefing on the matter and then, or, prepare an
agenda bill to schedule the matter before the City Council. Alternatively, staff could prepare a
presentation for City Council consideration of the CRTMP revisions at a monthly study session.
The new Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program with revisions included, would
ultimately be approved by the City Council via adoption of a resolution as in 2001.
ROBERT T. JOHNSON, JR., P.E.
City Engineer
RTJ:jf
Glenn Pruim
Skip Hammann
Doug Bilse
December 7, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 2
ITEM 5 - PREVIOUS BUSINESS:
Chair Gumming presented to Lt. Don Rawson, Carlsbad Police Department, a Resolution of
Commendation for his service to the City and the Traffic Safety Commission before his retirement in
September 2009. The entire Commission offered their sincere congratulations and appreciation for
his years of service. Lt. Rawson thanked the City and Commission and graciously accepted the
Resolution of Commendation.
Robert Johnson, City Engineer, reported there were no items to report.
ITEM 6 - NEW BUSINESS:
ITEM 6A: Approve proposed revisions to the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management
Program.
Mr. Johnson stated this was the third month in a row that the Commission has been presented with
information regarding the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program (CRTMP). In October
2009, staff presented an overview of the current program with a preview of some changes that were
being contemplated. In November 2009 staff presented more details of the proposed changes. The
Commission was not asked to make a recommendation. The Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee
(TSCC), a staff committee, met in November and they made their recommendations. Those
recommendations are the proposed revisions to the CRTMP being presented today. Doug Bilse,
Traffic Signal Systems Engineer, will provide today's staff report. In addition, Fire Chief Chris
Heiser and Fire Marshal Jim Weigand of the Fire Department, as well as Lt. Rawson of the Police
Department, are in attendance and available to discuss the various traffic calming measures and to
answer any questions the Commission may have.
Mr. Bilse indicated today's third presentation would tie everything together that has been presented
to the Commission to date. He presented a summary of the major changes to the CRTMP.
1. The new program will have four phases, including a new Phase II that includes cost-effective
measures. The four phases are named: Phase I - Education and Enforcement; Phase II -
Engineering; Phase III - Traffic Calming Plan; and Phase IV - Traffic Calming
Design/Construction.
2. There will be clear criteria for each program phase, including one to establish when a street
is eligible for the CRTMP. Criteria to enter Phase I is the roadway width must not exceed 40
feet as measured "face of curb-to-face of curb." In addition, the roadway section must meet
the definition of a residence district as defined by the California Vehicle Code or be located
in a designated school zone. Exemptions will be allowed on a case-by-case basis as
determined by the City Engineer. Criteria to enter Phase II is that Phase I is completed and
the 85th percentile speed must be 32 miles per hour or greater. The Phase II concept plan
December 7, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 3
must be approved by 67% of the residents (50% response rate) before Phase II traffic
measures can be implemented. Criteria to enter Phase III and IV is that Phase II is
completed. A petition must be signed by a majority of the residents to request a Phase III
traffic calming plan. The qualification criteria scoring worksheet score must exceed 50 points
based on traffic data collected after the Phase II measures have been installed. City Council
must approve funding towards the development of the traffic calming plan and then for
design and construction for Phase IV. The Phase III traffic calming plan must be approved
by 67% of property owners (50% response rate) before traffic calming measures are
designed and constructed.
3. A point system will be used to establish a funding threshold for entering Phase PI. The Phase
III qualification criteria scoring worksheet will include: (1) Travel Speed (30 points max) -
10 points for each mile per hour the 85th percentile speed is over 32 miles per hour; (2)
Traffic Volume (40 points max) - ADT divided by 100 or peak hour volume divided by 10;
(3) Collision History (5 points for any correctable collision in past 5 years); (4) Sidewalks
(10 points max) - no sidewalk or pedestrian pathways exist on either side of the street =10
points; no sidewalk or pedestrian pathways exist along at least one side of the street = 5
points; (5) School Proximity (5 points max) - school grounds abut candidate street = 5
points; PAOI is located within 500 feet of school grounds = 3 points; PAOI is located within
1,000 feet of school grounds = 1 point; (6) Pedestrian Crossings (10 points max) - school
crosswalk (yellow crosswalk) is located on a street in the PAOI = 5 points; major crosswalk
is located on a street in the PAOI =10 points. A minimum score of 51 points is required to
qualify for Phase III.
4. The recommended spacing of traffic calming measures is 300 to 700 feet with ideal spacing
of 500 feet. Residential streets are ideally designed to a residential neighborhood scale. An
effective roadway length achieves vehicle speeds and traffic volumes consistent with typical
neighborhood uses, restricts effective roadway length so that a driver comes to a complete
stop or makes a significant turning movement every 500-700 feet, and have speeding issues
typical along uncontrolled tangent roadway sections exceeding 700 feet. The CRTMP
recommends installing traffic calming measures at about 500 foot spacing.
5. Phase II will allow residential stop signs. The advantages to residential stop signs are they
are a cost-effective way to limit effective roadway length to 500 feet, and there is minimal
impact to emergency response tunes. The disadvantages to residential stop signs are some
drivers may ignore stop signs that do not establish right-of-way or address sight distance
issues. In addition, stop signs are not a self-enforcing measure, they tend to penalize drivers
adhering to speed limits, may only reduce vehicle speed within about 150 feet of a stop sign,
and may increase noise and air pollution resulting from vehicle acceleration.
6. Phase II will allow speed tables with consideration for impacts to emergency response times.
Speed tables are essentially flat-topped speed humps long enough for a passenger car to rest
on top. They are similar in design and concept to raised crosswalks allowed in the current
CRTMP. They generally have higher design speeds and produce a gentler ride than speed
humps. There is a trend towards speed tables over speed humps. Speed tables are self
enforcing and penalize drivers adhering to speed limits. Other Phase II measures must be
considered first. The Police Department and Fire Department staff will have final approval of
speed table locations and spacing.
December 7, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 4
7. Phase III will include speed lumps as the least desirable alternative due to impact to
emergency response times. Speed lumps reduce impact to emergency response times of
large fire apparatus by providing gaps corresponding to the distance between front and rear
wheels. It results in an abrupt ride for ambulances. The use of speed lumps will require
special approval of both the fire Department and Police Department. Speed humps require
all emergency response vehicles to stop virtually before traversing each measure. Speed
humps will continue to be prohibited in the CRTMP.
DISCUSSION;
Chair Gumming asked the Fire Department representative to comment on speed lumps and the
impact to emergency response times.
Fire Marshal Weigand stated that any traffic calming measure installed affects their vehicles. They
try to look at it from the point of view of affecting safety for their responders and affecting in
particular safety and comfort for the citizens in medical response. Speed tables provide a constant
and gradual rise, a flat top, and a gradual down. It is more acceptable to the Fire Department to use
speed tables than speed lumps. The reason for that is speed lumps can be placed easily for the engine
company, but if you make speed lumps narrow enough so that they work for ambulances also, the
only people who will be stopping are those people in Smart cars and a Prius with really narrow
wheelbases because everybody else will be able to access those same patterns. Of course, this is not
the intent of what they are here to do. They are here to calm traffic on the streets.
The Fire Department concern with speed lumps and the ambulances is patient comfort and safety for
their fire fighters. If they are doing cardio-pulmonary resuscitation in the ambulance and hit the
speed lump and are not seat-belted in, they may be flying around and are going to get hurt. If they
are trying to start an IV on a citizen and they happen to hit a speed lump at the time when the
paramedic is trying to start the IV, it presents risks to the responders and to the patients. Therefore,
any one of these traffic calming measures are somewhat problematic but can work as long as other
measures are tried before. If there is still a problem, the Fire Department can work with the
engineering staff to try and find strategic places where they can place speed tables to try and take
care of the problem. Speed tables reduce their response time a little less and it provides better patient
care.
Commissioner Gallagher indicated you start the process with the residents and they can make the
request for a traffic calming plan, and you get ahead of everything in the sense that you start the
residents down a particular path, but then ultimately after they have gone through that process of
getting or starting a traffic calming plan, somewhere along the line the property owners can come in
and overrule what the residents requested. Did he understand that is how it may work? In other
words, you start out with the residents, who may not be property owners; they start the ball rolling
December 7, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 5
for a traffic calming plan; then after you've got them moving on that, down the road that plan has to
be approved by 67% of the property owners who may not have been involve in the first place.
Mr. Bilse stated this was one of the discussions that the TSCC had. He indicated Commissioner
Gallagher was correct that the process is started by the residents, and that it is always easier to go
down the street with people that live there and build consensus. What staff is trying to avoid is that
they don't want to pick on a property owner that may be an absentee property owner who gets a vote
in this process. The voting is somewhat limiting to approve a plan that may have impact to the
property.
Mr. Johnson indicated that at the TSCC meeting, there was discussion that most of the residents on a
street are going to be owner-occupied dwellings. Staff really did not think that it would be skewed so
much by changing the criteria as Commissioner Gallagher brought up. For the most part, the
residents will be the owners, and staff didn't believe the numbers would be great enough to really
affect the vote.
Regarding stop signs, Mr. Bilse stated a lot of the negatives about stop signs that don't meet the
MUTCD guidelines or they are unwarranted stop signs is that they may surprise the driver. They
come out of the ordinary. You are surprised that all of a sudden you have to stop, when you look at a
whole street as a series and you have either speed tables or stop signs equally spaced, maybe the first
stop sign is a little out of the ordinary, but when you look closely it creates a pattern. As we've seen
on Levante Street, by putting them in drivers aren't surprised when they see one and then the next
one is evenly spaced. It is going to be critical to introduce the first stop sign in a very attractive way
and catch the driver's attention so that a lot of the "surprised" stops that create a lot of the negative
impact of it won't happen. When you look at a collector road that has a higher volume and a higher
speed, they can't just start those cars at a high speed and then abruptly have a stop sign. Staff will
look back to where it starts to be controlled and try to get the pattern going earlier.
Mr. Johnson stated it was very important to recognize staff is talking about a residence district street
not a street in a residential area. There are very specific criteria per the vehicle code that defines
what street qualifies as a residence district. One criterion is the width. It cannot be more than 40 feet
wide, and then it has to do with the number of homes on either one or both sides of the street. A
collector road typically has the spacing of homes that would not meet the residence district criteria.
So we are talking about the typical residential street that people think of as residence district, but the
vehicle code will indicate 13 feet on one side of the street and 16 feet on both sides within a one-
quarter mile distance or any ratio thereof. When staff looks at what a residence district is, they have
to go out and physically count homes, measure the street, and make that determination. If it doesn't
meet the determination for a residence district, even though it is a residential area, then they are not
talking about this particular program. The residence district or school zone is a very key component
in what we are talking about.
Mr. Bilse added the number one criterion is a maximum 40 foot width. Either way, whether you're
in a school zone or a residence district, you still have to have a 40 foot wide curb-to-curb or less. So,
December 7, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 6
no multi-lane roads. The concept is of a narrow road, one lane in each direction in a school zone or a
residence district.
Mr. Johnson interjected that a good example of a collector road is Tamarack Avenue west of El
Carnino Real from Skyline Road down to the freeway. It is a collector road designated hi the
Circulation Element. There are homes on both sides of the street. People think of it as a residential
area, but it is not a residence district. It is too wide of a road curb to curb, so it would not meet the
criteria for a residence district, hence a 30 mile per hour speed limit posting, in accordance with
results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey.
Mr. Bilse indicated that if staff found a collector road that didn't quite meet the definition, there are
exemptions, but that is the kind of a place where staff would say you can come into the program, but
they aren't interested in stop signs in certain cases. So in a residence district or a school zone, they
can put a series of stop signs and speed tables and striping alternatives and try to do this at low cost,
and if that doesn't work, then they can go to Phase III. But when you look at collector roads in
residential areas but not in the residence districts, that is where they have a little bit of latitude in that
they might get them into the program, yet not allow residential stop signs.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if skate boarders are deterred by speed lumps.
Mr. Bilse stated skate boarding issues in regards to speed lumps have not come across his desk.
Speed lumps are designed to be safe at the posted speed limit, but he didn't see any negative reports
or impacts on bikes or skateboarders. He could see how skateboarders would like to use speed
lumps, as they do most such things in the city. There has been no research on the issue.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he would hate to be the resident right across the street from the
speed lump if skateboarders found it very attractive.
Mr. Bilse felt speed lumps would not impact parking, so there would be no need to paint red curbs in
front of them. It would be signed appropriately. However, speed lumps would change the character
of an entire length of a street.
Vice-Chair Roney commented that Mr. Bilse did a great job of taking the information from the
Commission's input last month and developed an acceptable process.
Commissioner Gallagher concurred. He felt staff should be commended for all the work they have
accomplished in such a short period of time. This is not an easy document, and to get all of this
information to the Commission before today's meeting is very commendable and outstanding. It
appears that when the Commission met last month, at that time they talked about including speed
tables and speed lumps in the toolbox for Phase II. Obviously, that has changed as a result of other
input from other City agencies. Was there a lot of discussion by staff about the speed lumps going
from Phase II to Phase III at the TSCC meeting?
December 7, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 7
Mr. Bilse indicated there was quite a bit of reluctance to do that. Different staff have a different
perspective; they are police, fire, and liability. What got staff to this point is realizing that traffic
calming is not perfect and it is not engineering and planning butting heads. Everybody had to
compromise, and he respects the fire and police realizing that their main purpose in their interaction
with the citizens is to provide the fastest, safest emergency response they can. But they started
realizing that the perceived issue of children and pedestrians at risk and safety, it somewhat
mitigated concerns, but still he respects their ability to include speed lumps into the document. It is a
traffic calming measure of last resort. That is basically where the discussions went.
Commissioner Gallagher appreciated Fire Marshal Weigand's input. He enlightened him on some of
the issues that they deal with when they respond to an emergency. He has driven Donna Drive
numerous times, and he noticed there are several dips on the street. How does that impact emergency
vehicles? You have this issue with speed lumps and speed tables as far as responding to an
emergency, but how does a roadway dip section which also affects how their vehicle is going
through that street affect them?
Fire Marshal Weigand stated dips slow emergency responders down, but they are necessary for the
removal of surface water from the road. If they don't remove water from the hillsides and streets,
then they wind up with a greater problem. The Fire Department concern is adding additional
obstructions, additional delays for them. Quite honestly, the dips don't delay them nearly as much as
speed humps or speed lumps would potentially do. In the compromise that took place, Fire
Department staff continued to take speed humps off the table. They are not effective. Speed lumps
were continued as a Phase III option because there are so many other things that have worked in
other jurisdictions, and they have found that between use of striping and stop signs that takes care of
most of the problems. The speed tables as a Phase II option gave them the opportunity to take a look
at one other thing that they might be able to toss in an area where it is just not working. It would
have minimum impact on the Fire Department, would provide safety for the citizens, would provide
comfort for anybody that was being transported, and safety for the firefighters that might be working
on that person, because it is a less obstructive method. It is used in Europe widely. You come up on
speed tables and you really don't have to reduce your speed. It's probably one of the greatest secrets
around. But it just looks like such a massive obstruction hi front of you that you do want to reduce
your speed. That is what they are looking for, something that will allow the Fire Department to
gently take that rise, cover the distance, take the drop down, and provide the safety they are looking
for. The inclusion of speed lumps in Phase III is the same sort of thing. If all the other Phase III
measures don't work, then they can take a look at maybe a speed lump situation if they have to
before they move to the more expensive measures. That's where they are trying to go in the
compromise. It was an excellent process and they appreciated the opportunity to participate.
Commissioner Gallagher felt it was a pretty good compromise. He felt the Commission was trying to
help staff last month by giving the Fire Department all the tools they thought they might use in Phase
II, but after listening to Fire Marshal Weigand's explanation today, he felt it made more sense to
keep the speed tables in Phase II, but move the speed lumps if you ever need them, onto Phase III.
He felt it was a good move.
December 7, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 8
Mr. Bilse reiterated there were many internal discussions. This was a pivotal point - residential stop
signs and the speed lumps, and where they would be located. He mentioned that a great deal of the
work by staff on this issue was done by Jim Murray and John Kim in the Engineering Department
and they deserve a lot of the credit.
Chair Cumming asked what the elevation of a speed table was.
Mr. Bilse stated it was typically less than 4 niches high, definitely more than 3 inches.
Chair Cumming asked if the engineer had a choice of how high they would make the speed table.
Mr. Bilse stated these prefabricated speed tables are set, but as Fire Marshal Weigand stated, there
are some design concepts that are used in Europe that might be more of a gentle ramp. It is a visual
impediment that you see and you are just going to hit your brakes. Once you get that effectiveness
and get the driver's attention, you want the driver to interact with the road again and not just drive
haphazardly. The speed table doesn't have to be as sharp as a speed hump or speed lump.
Public Testimony
Chair Cumming called for Public Testimony.
Cathy Miller, 3455 Ann Drive, Carlsbad, of the Donna Drive Traffic Calming Committee, thanked
the Engineering Department and the Commission for their hard work that led to the proposed
revisions of the CRTMP that is so needed. The most important issue for her is to get the proposed
revisions approved. She strongly hopes the Commission finds the proposed revisions acceptable and
that they recommend the City Council approve it. However, the proposed revisions are not
completely satisfactory, even if the need for the proposed revisions over-shadows the dissatisfactions
they have. They have a problem with stop signs, because there are going to be times when there is
going to be a very long stretch (in their case 900 feet on Donna Drive and 1,200 feet on Sierra
Morena) where there cannot be any stop signs because there are no intersections. So the use of a stop
sign is impossible as a solution. The committee was praying for the speed lumps. They understand
the problems from the recent fire, but they were really hoping they would turn up in Phase II, and
they are sorry to see them go.
Regarding striping, Ms. Miller asked if it is illegal to drive over them. If so, they are going to need
enforcement in order to make them effective. Otherwise, there are going to be people who drive the
streets who are going to ignore them when they see there is no enforcement of the striping. How
much trial time is there going to be? If they try the stop signs and then the striping, how much time
for a trial period is there before they can move on to the speed table? In the staff report, she didn't
see any mention about the PAOI which was mentioned in the last staff report. In their experience on
Donna Drive, it is a very tricky thing to drive a PAOI. They have problems with it. It is very
important to carefully word the verbiage of how a PAOI is assessed and established and needs lots of
December 7, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 9
flexibility because she thinks as many traffic calming problems as there are, there are many different
PAOI's to be established. This particular revision took so much time and energy and money, it
would be wonderful if there was a provision for possibly every five years to have the Traffic
Management Plan revised or capable of being revised without such a huge undertaking to be done.
It's something that could be looked at and decided what other devices are available, what's come up,
so that it is something that is actually written into the project so that you wouldn't have to go
through this lengthy process again.
Chair Gumming mentioned that there is tremendous good will between the technical staff, the traffic
department, and the citizenry in that they are willing to work together and try to get to the shared
goal.
Joan Flanagan, 3331 Donna Drive, Carlsbad, of the Donna Drive Traffic Calming committee, agreed
that staff has done a wonderful job on trying to put this together and working together with police
and fire. She also doesn't want the response time lowered, but she is very concerned about the
speeders. None of them care how many cars go down there street; they just want them to drive at a
reasonable speed. She felt the speed tables are a very good visual alternative that won't impair
things. Basically, she thinks this has been a good, well thought out program and they should move
forward with it. She would recommend as part of the Donna Drive committee also that the
Commission approve these revisions and move it to the City Council.
Regarding skateboarders, Ms. Flanagan stated she was a junior high and high school teacher and in
her experience with teenagers and skateboards, those speed tables aren't big enough to cause a
problem. They're rubber - they aren't hard enough. The best things skateboarders like are the steps
going down to Village G and H at Valley Middle School. You can open any skateboard magazine
and there are skateboarders coming down steps with a sign posted saying you aren't supposed to be
here, but it's the weekend. They want something that's a challenge. You could put that little speed
table in front of her house and it wouldn't bother her at all. Right now, the skateboards that come
down her street - they've installed a circle driveway to get their grandchildren off the street, so their
children can unload the grandchildren without being hit. The skateboarders come down the street and
when the speeders come, they come up by the curb to her driveway, circle through the driveway, and
go back down on the street and it doesn't bother her at all because she doesn't want to see them get
hit. And it doesn't make a tremendous amount of noise either. The 900 foot stretch on Donna Drive
is a real problem because they don't fit into the category - it's almost twice the length of where you
can put stop signs. There is no place to put a stop sign there. The alternatives that staff has come up
with are wonderful. How long do they have to have the striping and stop signs before they can move
on to try a speed table? She hopes the Commission approves the revisions to the plan.
Seeing no others wishing to testify, Chair Gumming closed Public Testimony.
December 7, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 10
DISCUSSION:
Vice-Chair Roney commented that the public wanted to know that once the process is in place, when
will this be updated again? On an annual basis, 5 years, or what?
Mr. Bilse stated he was assuming it was going to take a while. There are two programs now that they
will probably learn a lot from. Since staff is'trying new things in Phase II - and speed tables are in
Phase II, so the residents won't have to wait to apply them every 500 feet. They are going to work
together with fire and police and say okay, if it isn't a table, it's going to be something else. They
will probably look at this every couple of years and be open to revisions and he didn't feel it would
be such a huge effort as this.
Chair Gumming stated the speed table is to be a lower priority because it is an impediment, and if
there is an alternative, we'd use the alternative before they would go to an impediment. Would it be
appropriate to put this matter on a future agenda as a report to the Traffic Safety Commission every
six months on how the experience is flowing, just an informational report?
Mr. Bilse didn't know if anything can happen in six months time, but they can have an annual
review. If the revisions are approved, the Commission will not be brought the residential stop signs.
If the streets meet these criteria, it is not a safety issue, it is a traffic calming issue, and staff will go
ahead with that. Staff can make periodic updates on what is implemented and soon thereafter how
effective they were.
Chair Gumming indicated that would be very helpful.
Mr. Bilse pointed out the public had mentioned the PAOI and asked if the Commission wanted to
address this?
Chair Gumming stated laying out territories for any kind of activity, whether it is a congressional
district or municipal boundaries or whatever, is both a judgmental and political animal of a different
kind. That is why he previously spoke about the good will that they had between staff and the
citizenry that they are trying to facilitate giving them the right balance that creates the safest possible
city with the least inconvenience to the public. It's a judgment of who is affected and whose interests
are involved in deciding that. Regarding striping and enforcement, that is an engineering judgment.
He thought they were relying on the good will of the engineers to come back to that.
Mr. Johnsoir stated traffic calming is an art and a science, a blend, and engineering judgment that is a
very big part of traffic calming. That is why the engineers get together with the police department.
The police do not want something built into the street system that causes them more work. Any time
a traffic calming program is looked at, the end result is to have something that meets the
expectations of the residents to slow traffic or to reduce volumes, minimize calls to the police
department, and certainly to minimize complaints to the engineering department about speeding.
Traffic calming programs take a lot of work with the residents to achieve that balance that everyone
December 7, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 11
can live with. The program we have in place now was a very good program and the revisions we are
talking about today further enhance that program. If changes we are talking about today don't work
or they need to be revised or refined, then the process allows for those changes to come back to the
Commission. To have a set time is probably not appropriate, because they really don't know where
they are at in the program. It took about eight years to get to this point from when the City Council
first approved the program. It may take the same or less time for updates.
Commissioner Gallagher indicated he did not want to prejudge what the engineers are going to do
with striping, but in his experience in working with the county a number of years ago, just putting in
striping really wasn't all that effective because what they are striving to do to is guide motorists. If
the motorist isn't deterred from following those guidelines on the striping, it didn't work for them.
After the Commission takes their action, does this proposed revised plan go to the City Council next
month?
Mr. Johnson explained staff will give a written report to the City Manager and she will strategize and
determine when it is scheduled for consideration by the City Council.
Commissioner Gallagher said the reason he asked that question is that making the assumption that
early next year this revised program goes before the City Council and it is approved and includes the
new Phase II, the public in attendance today who are wanting to get something done on their street
after waiting a number of years, is it reasonable to think that staff could implement some of the
Phase II, depending on what staff thinks is appropriate for Donna Drive, proceed with some of the
stop signs?
Chair Gumming stated the Commission now has the authority to approve or disapprove the proposed
revisions to the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program. That is probably where their
authority begins and ends. They need to rely on the good will of the City to meet the needs of its
citizens to move things along as expeditiously as possible. If the citizens feel that things are not, then
they come back and let us know. His experience so far is that they are not usually reticent to do that.
He'd rather let it follow its normal course.
ACTION: Motion by Vice-Chair Roney, and duly seconded by Commissioner
Valderrama, to approve the proposed revisions to the Carlsbad
Residential Traffic Management Program as indicated in the staff
report.
VOTE: 4-0-0
AYES: dimming, Roney, Valderrama, Gallagher
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
I T Y OF
CARLSBAD ANNUAL REPORT
January 2010 State of Effectiveness Report
Table of Contents
Introduction ......... 2
Finance .......... 4
Risk Management. ........ 6
Communication ......... 7
Volunteer Program ........ 9
Capital Improvement Program . . . . . . 11
Code Enforcement ........ 14
Planning .......... 17
Housing & Redevelopment ....... 19
Building Inspections ........ 22
Fire 25
Police 27
The Cultural Arts Office 30
Library .......... 32
Recreation & Park Planning ....... 34
Parks 36
Trails 38
Potable Water 40
Recycled Water ......... 42
Sewer .......... 44
Solid Waste 47
Storm Water ......... 49
Street Maintenance ........ 52
Traffic Engineering ........ 54
Facilities .......... 57
Fleet 59
Human Resources ........ 61
Information Technology. ....... 63
The January 2010 State of Effectiveness Report is designed to provide an
overview of the City of Carlsbad's overall performance in many different
service areas. This report represents the tenth full year that the City of
Carlsbad has issued a report on its performance. The report includes data
from the Annual Citywide Survey as well as specific measures for the various
service areas.
Carlsbad's performance management efforts are designed to reflect the
outcome of city services and are focused on three related areas - service
delivery, customer satisfaction and cost efficiency. This process of defining
and measuring these three areas helps provide a balanced approach in
evaluating the overall effectiveness and value of a service area.
Based on the results of the performance measures, staff identified some key
findings:
• The City's long-term fiscal health, while positive, continues to be a
concern.
• Customer satisfaction ratings continue to be positive with most City
services rated as either good or excellent 90% of the time.
• While the operating cost per acre of the City's parks decreased in FY
2008-09, the visual assessments continue to be high at 93%.
• The number of sewer overflows per 100 miles of sewer main has
decreased by 72% since FY 2006-07.
• Carlsbad continues to exceed the benchmark with regard to citizens'
sense of safety for both the day and night time hours.
• The performance measures are starting to decline for areas, such as
streets and the recycled water system, that are no longer expanding at
the levels that they were in the past.
• As a result of budget reductions, costs have decreased for a number of
areas, including: Parks, Street, Recreation and Trails.
• The gross annual sales tax for the Village has declined by 10%;
however, the overall City results are down by 18%.
Lastly, the Performance Measurement Resource Team would like to thank
the various departments and staff actively engaged in continuous
2
improvement and commitment to the pursuit of excellence though the
performance measurement process. These service providers are openly
committed to the efficient delivery of services to the people who live, work,
and play in the City of Carlsbad.
Finance
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Balanced Long
Term Fiscal
Condition: 10-year
financial forecast
Monthly Financial
Status Report:
Timely Distribution
Business License
Processing
Outgoing Payment
Processing
Benchmark
Revenues will be
equal to or exceed
expenditures for each
year for 10 years
<15 Average Working
Days
Decrease in % of
pending licenses year
to year
Decrease in % of
delinquent renewals
Year to year
Increase in % of on-
line processing year
to year
Increase in % of
successful payments
year to year
Increase in % of
electronic payments
year to year
FY 2006-07
Yes
11.6 average
working days
1.50%
2.16%
7.08%
99.53%
49.00%
FY 2007-08
Yes
12 average
working days
1.57%
2.16%
7.75%
99.70%
50.50%
FY 2008-09
Yes
10.7 average
working days
1.41%
2.49%
8.20%
99.71%
53.00%
Overall, most of these indicators have continued to be positive for Fiscal Year
2008-09.
The Finance Department focused on the long-term financial outlook given the
state of the global economy, and continued focus on accuracy and more
effective use of technology.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• While the ten year forecast for FY 2008-09 reflected positive surpluses each
year, the revised 10 year forecast for FY 2009-10 is projecting some annual
operating deficits due to the economy.
• The forecast for the next ten years reflects an operating deficit/surplus in the
General Fund of slightly negative to $2.8 million per year, which is less than
the previous year's forecast due to the slow economy. The City will adjust
operating expenditures to match revenues to eliminate any operating
deficits.
• The slow economy is also reflected in the measures for business license
processing. The percentage of pending licenses has decreased and the
number of delinquent renewals has increased.
• As the City reaches build-out, the emphasis shifts from new infrastructure
construction to infrastructure maintenance and replacement. The ability to
fund infrastructure maintenance and replacement is important to the
sustainability of the City. Through fiscal discipline, the City continues its
contribution to the Infrastructure Replacement Fund of 6.5% of the General
Fund revenues.
• The ten-year financial forecast also considers the Capital Improvement
Program and the timing for the operation and maintenance of new facilities
that will be opening over the next ten years.
• Through useful tools such as the Financial Status Report and the ten-year
financial forecast, the City will be able to continue to respond to changes in
the economy and/or other changes which may be out of the City's control.
ACTION PLANS
• Use the City's web site as a service enhancement vehicle for Business
Licensing.
• Continue to explore new avenues to identify possible businesses within the
City that operate without a Business License.
• Work with City departments to continue to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of operations, as well as fiscal responsibility, financial reporting
and processing of financial information.
• Continue to communicate on a timely basis with Council, management and
departments on the fiscal condition of the City.
Risk Management
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Claims Administration
Benchmark
90% of claim
determinations
made within 45
clays of receipt
FY 2006-07
96%
FY 2007-08
96%
FY 2008-09
94%
A key measure of Risk Management is the timeliness of processing claims. This
measure reflects the efforts of all departments to coordinate on the collection of
information, writing of reports, and on the evaluation of claims. This provides
for an efficient and timely response to claimants which serves to reduce and
mitigate liability exposure throughout the City.
Claims Administration consistently reflects a processing time within the time
frames established by law.
Claims are consistently resolved within the statutory timeframe of 45 days.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• Loss control is part of the prudent management of fiscal resources. To this end,
Risk Management provides a focused managerial direction for the City's self-
insured general liability and property damage insurance programs. Risk
coordinates with department's citywide, legal counsel, consultants, third party
administrators, and insurance companies to manage claims against the City and
minimize losses.
ACTION PLANS
• Risk Management works with all departments to continue to improve loss control
measures of Department operations and to evaluate and revise insurance
requirements in contracts and permits as necessary.
6
Communication
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Level of Information
Benchmark
90%
FY 2006-07
82%
FY 2007-08
80%
FY 2008-09
79%
Customer Satisfaction
Level of Confidence
Benchmark
90%
FY 2006-07
79%
FY 2007-08
76%
FY 2008-09
74%
Cost
Cost Per Capita
Benchmark
To Be
Determined
FY 2006-07
$8.90
FY 2007-08
$11.00
FY 2008-09
$8.50
• Communications has been a major area of focus for the City over the past
several years. The City evaluates its communication efforts based on the level of
information residents feel they have, the cost to provide that information, and
the level of confidence residents have in local government.
• Cost per capita expenditures increased in 2007-08 due to the public outreach
efforts associated with the Proposition D Citizen Committee and the
development of the City's new brand and design costs associated with the Web
site.
• In 2008-09, the per capita costs reflect a reduction in the communication budget
due to the economic recession.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• Results of the City's communication efforts have been consistent for the past
several years. FY 2008-09 saw minimal changes in these results as resident
ratings continue to be predominately positive.
• The City completed a major Web site redesign and technology upgrade in 2008-
09 and launched a 24/7 cable channel on Time Warner. These new and
7
enhanced communication channels will make information about city issues, news
and events even easier to access.
Since the cable channel and Web site have the ability to be integrated, with
information from the Web site fed directly to the channel, the City achieves
economies of scale. Information is produced in one format and distributed
through multiple channels.
Although trends continue to show many residents use the City Web site as a top
information source, fully one third of the population never visits the site. The
City must continue to make information available though more traditional
communication methods, in addition to Web-based content, to reach all
segments of the public.
ACTION PLANS
• The city will continue to explore new and innovative ways to communicate with
residents, businesses and visitors. One area of focus for 2009-10 is social
media, with the launch of a YouTube channel and Twitter feed. As these new
outlets are further developed, the reach of city communication efforts should
continue to expand. Baseline information has been collected to allow for
measurement in subsequent years.
• As consumption of traditional media continues to decline, in addition to social
media, the City will also explore more direct communication methods, such as
newsletters/neighborhood updates on issues of interest to the community.
• The addition of video capabilities on the new City Web site, the City's new Time
Warner channel and the YouTube channel provide new opportunities to
communicate through video. The City is adapting its video production
capabilities to allow for more breaking news and short, Web-based video
updates on city issues, news and events.
Volunteer Program
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Initial Contact to
Response Time
Offered Orientations
Orientation to Referral in
less than 3 days
Benchmark
< 3 days 95%
of the time
At least one per
month
90% of the time
FY 2006-07
99%
2.0
96%
FY 2007-08
100%
2.7
90%
FY 2008-09
100%
2.5
89%
Customer Satisfaction
Volunteer Orientation
Evaluation
Volunteer Satisfaction
(measured every other
year)
Benchmark
A satisfaction
rating of 4 or
higher
90% or higher
rate experience
as positive
FY 2006-07
4.84
N/A
FY 2007-08
4.75
92%
FY 2008-09
4.23
N/A
Cost
Cost Effectiveness
Ratio of Value to Cost
Benchmark
N/A
FY 2006-07
4:1
FY 2007-08
5:1
FY 2008-09
6:1
Responsiveness to an expression of interest from a potential volunteer is
essential to top quality service. The Volunteer program works to ensure a
rapid and adequate response to all those wishing to volunteer in the City.
Once the volunteers are welcomed into the City's volunteer program, the
Community Volunteer Coordinator works to ensure a positive participant
experience in both the orientation and volunteer specific service areas.
Expenditures for volunteer operations are compared to the calculated value
of hourly volunteer time. This cost calculation allows the City to see the
return on investment and cost effectiveness of the volunteer program.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• The city currently has 2,360 volunteers of which 255 were new volunteers.
This growth can be contributed to two key factors, one the number of people
in the workforce looking to attain new skills and keep active as well as the
increase in the quality of volunteer opportunities available.
• This increase in volume might have influenced the slight downward trend in
volunteer orientation satisfaction and the number of orientations to referrals
within a 3 day window.
• The benefit of the volunteers to the city continues to improve. Based on the
standard volunteer rate of value in the amount of $23.65 per hour, the City
received a benefit of $1,849,186 in FY 2008-09.
ACTION PLANS
• While the calculation for volunteer return on investment is derived from the
Independent Sector for the State of California, and the annual Present's
Economic Report, staff will work towards another benchmark - ideally one
that allows for comparison of the City of Carlsbad, to other local and state-
wide volunteer programs.
• Due to increasing volunteer interest, staff will investigate options to provide
clerical assistance to Volunteer Resources to maintain high levels of service
delivery.
• Staff will create a Web-based survey to implement a low-cost way to define
volunteer satisfaction.
10
Capital Improvement
Program
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Percentage of projects completed
within approved construction
budget
Percentage of projects completed
within approved construction
schedule
Benchmark
90%
90%
FY 2006-
07
95%
90%
FY 2007-
08
100%
87%
FY 2008-
09
96%
96%
Cost
Total engineering cost compared to
total construction cost as a
percentage
Percentage of projects with total
engineering costs less than the
results in the California Multi-agency
CIP Benchmarking Study
Benchmark
< 30% (FY08)
< 37% (FY09)
> 75%
FY 2006-
07
13%
100%
FY 2007-
08
24%
93%
FY 2008-
09
22%
84%
• The construction budget is defined as the contractor's bid plus approved
contingency at time of contract award by the City Council.
• Twenty-four of twenty-five projects completed in FY 2008-09 were within
their approved construction budget.
• Of the 25 projects completed 24 (96%) were within the contract completion
date, compared to 87% (13 of 15) in FY 2007-08.
• The total engineering cost is defined as all planning, design and construction
management/inspection costs for the project.
11
The City's average project delivery cost percentage for FY 2008-09 is 22% of
total construction cost. This is below the percentage range of the top four
performing cities in the Benchmarking Study, which ranged from 31% to
38%
The total engineering service cost compared to construction cost, as a
percentage, ranged from 31% to 38% for the four best performing cities in
the California Multi-Agency Benchmarking Study 2008 Update. In FY 2008-
09, Carlsbad had 84% (21 out of 25 CIP projects) with total engineering
service costs less than the average of these four best performing cities.
The California Multi-Agency Benchmarking study indicates the maximum
percentage of total engineering service cost compared to construction cost is
41%. For Carlsbad 21, out of 25 projects (84%) had engineering service
cost less than 41%. The benchmark requires that at least 75% of Carlsbad's
projects will not exceed the maximum of 41%.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• One project this fiscal year did not finish within the allowed contract time,
however, the benchmark was met for this performance measure this year,
compared to last fiscal year when the benchmark was not met.
• Sixth year results continue to show that Engineering Services costs have
been within benchmarking objectives, and construction costs are within the
approved budget.
ACTION PLANS
• Staff continually compares engineering estimates to bids received to adjust
appropriately the project cost estimates and will continue to monitor
construction cost trends and actual prices.
• Staff will proactively review the allocated construction time in the contract
and determine if there is sufficient time to account for typical construction
delays, such as weather and differing site conditions.
• End of project debriefing meetings will continue to be held to assess project
performance and determine where improvements can be made on future
projects.
• To improve timeliness of construction projects, staff will place increased
effort in communicating with contractors the need to be in compliance with
the stipulated time frame shown on their approved project schedule. Areas
of concern will be noted and communicated to the contractor where they
need to respond with increased effort or changes in construction
methodologies. This communication will take place in the regular project
12
meetings (typically weekly) and in writing when schedule slippages appear to
be adversely impacting the timely completion of projects.
Continue to work with contractors to ensure that construction schedules are
met.
13
Code Enforcement
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Calls for the nine most
common categories of
services
Benchmark
90% within
closure standard
of compliance
FY 2006-07
82%
FY 2007-08
87%
FY 2008-09
88%
Customer
Satisfaction
Customer survey
responses of "good" or
"excellent"
Benchmark
90%
FY 2006-07
N/A
FY 2007-08
98%
FY 2008-09
98%
Cost
Average Cost
per Case
Closed
FY 2004-05
$346
FY 2005-06
$332
FY 2006-07
$275
FY 2007-08
$263
FY 2008-
09
$268
The nine most common categories of service are: Engineering/Right-of-Way,
Signs, Zoning, Vehicle Abatement, Vehicle Zoning, Building, Garbage & Junk,
and Business License.
Case closure rates increased in seven out of nine categories and decreased in
two, Building and Right of Way cases. This translated into one percent
increase in the average case closure time for all categories from last year. A
more proactive program of business license enforcement has lead to a
twenty percent case increase from last fiscal year with a ninety five percent
closure rate. Code officers continue to provide individual case management
and this has resulted in more effective tracking and resolution of open cases.
Customer Service Surveys were sent out to over 150 code enforcement
customers during this period and the city received 35 responses. Customer
comments are tracked and a manager follow up occurred randomly in
14
approximately 30% of the cases. Customer satisfaction ratings of
good/excellent occurred in 98% of the surveys.
The average cost per case closed increased a nominal three percent. The
average cost per case remained relatively unchanged due to offsetting case
load reductions and unanticipated staff reductions in the last half of the fiscal
year.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• Vehicle abatement cases remained consistently low due to continuous and
effective code enforcement programs and practices. The number of vehicle
abatement cases remained at six cases this year. Vehicle case closures within
the standard compliance time frame increased 17% over last year. Case
reduction indicates the effectiveness of the vehicle abatement program.
• The non-anonymous complaint system continues to work effectively allowing
greater customer feedback and code enforcement officer follow up regarding
how a case is being handled. Customers appreciate notification on the
ongoing status of their case.
• Recidivism or the same violation at the same address within a three year
period decreased slightly from 445 cases to 415, while the total number of
case activity decreased 15%.
• An emphasis on code case management continues to be enhanced and
requires code officers to manage building code violation cases from the initial
complaint through plan check, permitting and final occupancy. This case
management approach to enforcement focuses on the ultimate resolution
and code compliance and cross platform coordination with counter staff,
building inspection staff and other departments within the city.
• Code enforcement cases that involve neighbor to neighbor conflicts are
managed through a multi level approach that facilitates a resolution through
a process that includes mediation, enforcement and neighborhood
awareness.
ACTION PLANS
• Code Enforcement, the City Attorney's Office, Planning staff, Police
Department personnel, Community Service Officers and Storm Water staff
will continue to meet on a regular basis to discuss current issues and to
ensure consistent and efficient enforcement in those cases that crossover
department jurisdictional authority. These cases will be tracked as IDEA
(Interdepartmental Enforcement Assistance) actions to allow enhanced
service to both internal and external customers.
15
Code Enforcement staff will continue to meet independently on a monthly
basis to review case management and reporting methodologies to insure
consistent reporting and data entry of case status, disposition and
appropriate case opening and close dates. In addition, code officers will
continue to provide a weekly update to the code enforcement manager on
difficult or complex cases.
Ongoing analysis of the specific types of code cases showing increased
recidivism will be done in the upcoming fiscal year to focus efforts on
education and community outreach on these types of cases.
Staff will continue evaluating alternatives to traditional code enforcement
techniques by involving Homeowner Associations, business owners,
homeowners and other community members in conflict resolution and
mediation referrals. Code Enforcement Officers will participate in additional
customer service training opportunities in other jurisdictions and
organizations. More active participation in State and Regional Code
Enforcement Organizations is anticipated.
16
Planning
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
80% of land use project
reviews complete in 3 or
less cycles.
Benchmark
80%
FY 2006-07
77%
FY 2007-08
97%
FY 2008-09
100%
Customer Satisfaction
Customer survey responses
of "good" or "excellent"
Benchmark
90%
FY 2006-07
87%
FY 2007-08
88%
FY 2008-09
93%
Review cycles entail reviewing minimum application submittal requirements
and identifying project design/standards compliance issues up-front.
FY 2008-09 is the third year of the service delivery measure. The benchmark
is based on an Application Completeness Review Survey completed in
September 2006 which included 32 cities throughout San Diego County,
Orange County, and Riverside County.
During FY 2008-09 Planning Staff reviewed 129 land use projects; 129 of the
projects were deemed complete in three (3) or less cycles, or 100%. Of the
129 land use projects, 45 projects were deemed complete in two (2) cycles.
FY 2008-09 is the third year of the customer service measure. Highly
satisfied customers are an indication that we are providing services in a
manner that is desired and/or expected. The measure reflects customer
satisfaction among citizens, professionals, developers and other agencies
that have direct interaction with the Planning Department through the
discretionary review process.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
. There are a number of reasons why it is important for staff to expedite land
use applications:
17
There are statutory regulations on the amount of time an agency has
to deem a project submittal complete. Once a project is deemed
complete, there are regulations on how long an agency has to approve
or disapprove an application.
The development community demands quick and efficient turnaround
times. Long review times add significant costs to development projects
and make it more difficult for builders to meet current market trends
and to build profitably.
ACTION PLANS
The Planning Department continues to find efficient methods to communicate
with the Planning staff and development community to ensure that everyone
knows and understands how the various development processes work up
front to assist in efficient processing of land use review application
submittals.
The length of time for a project to be deemed complete and difficulties
realized vary significantly based on the complexity of the projects. Staff will
continue to develop this measure and work with the Planning staff and
development community to find ways to meet or exceed the benchmark.
Data will be collected during the fiscal year and reviewed monthly to
determine the percentage of projects completed within three (3) or less
cycles.
18
Housing and
Redevelopment
THE VILLAGE AREA
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Gross Annual
Property Tax Value
Gross Annual
Sales Tax
Commercial Vacancy
Rates
# of Redevelopment
Permits Processed
Benchmark
Increase > 5%
Increase > 3%
5% or less
5 or more
FY 2006-07
21%
-1%
5%
39
FY 2007-08
2%
-4%
5%
60
FY 2008-09
4%
-10%
7%
56
Customer Satisfaction
Public Opinion/Customer
Satisfaction - good or
excellent
Section 8 Program
Assessment - Rental
Assistance
Benchmark
90%
Standard
Performer or
Better
FY 2006-07
88%
Standard
Performer
FY 2007-08
88%
High
Performer
FY 2008-09
88%
High
Performer
Cost
Ratio Public Funding to
Private Investment
Benchmark
1:10
FY 2006-07
1:62
FY 207-08
1:6
FY 2008-09
1:49
The Village Area has experienced a slight increase of 4 percent in Gross
Annual Property Tax Values, and a decrease in Gross Annual Sales Tax of -10
percent. The only area displaying growth in Gross Annual Sales Tax was in
the category of food products, with an increase of nearly $20,000 since the
last fiscal year. All other categories, when calculating the Gross Annual Sales
Tax, have seen decreases that can be directly linked to the down turn in the
economy. The decline in spending is not just being felt in the Village; rather
households nationwide are reducing their spending by considerable amounts.
19
For each $1 of public expenditures, the goal is to demonstrate that there has
been at least $10 of private investments made. In FY09, for the public to
private ratio was 1:49. During this past year, the Redevelopment Agency
scaled back expenditures as a result of the State of California "borrowing"
$1,349,220 without the Redevelopment Agency's consent. Commercial
redevelopment of properties has slowed down considerably since FY07. In
years past, money has been relatively accessible and both entrepreneurs and
banks have been willing to take on monetary risks. Within the past few
years, lending practices have shifted and financial institutions have raised
their standards when lending money, so opportunities for new growth have
dwindled and practically diminished.
Each year, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) surveys their agencies for maximum efficiency and effectiveness. The
Carlsbad Housing Agency received a rating of 102 percent and a noted as a
"High Performer" for its operation of the Section 8 Rental Assistance
Program, which exceeds the desired benchmark. The Carlsbad Housing
Agency has received this prestigious award for the second consecutive year.
The key factor to achieving "High Performer" was that the Housing Agency
able to utilize over 95% of the Housing Assistance funding allocated for
monthly rental assistance payments. This resulted in a higher point score
which elevated the rating from Standard Performer to High Performer. The
Agency continues to be very successful in maximizing the rental assistance
opportunities for low income residents throughout Carlsbad.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• The overall feeling of the Village Area continues to receive positive feedback
from residents, finding the Village to be an enjoyable place to spend their
time.
• Even with the slow economy, entrepreneurs are capitalizing and continuing to
open in the Village, adding to the diversity of businesses and helping to
ensure more favorable sales tax figures in the future. Within the past year,
restaurants such as Senor Grubby's, the Mediterranean Cafe, and the
Chocolate Bar have all opened their doors. Cultural arts is certainly making a
larger presence within the Village, new venues like Ivanffy-Uhler Gallery,
Synder Art, and the Artiste Art and Resort Clothing all now have a local
address. Looking forward into FY 2009-10, commercial eateries and
restaurants such as Vigilucci's Italian Market, Gauyule's Grill and Hodad's are
expected to open their doors to customers.
• As of November 2009, the retail vacancy rate is extremely low which possess
promising sales tax figures for FY 2009-10.
20
ACTION PLAN(S)
• Continue to implement programs that focus on revitalization in the Village
Area.
• Continue to work in partnership with property owners to implement
improvements on their Village properties.
• Collaborate with the Carlsbad Village Association, Chamber of Commerce and
other appropriate organizations to implement new programs and/or projects
that will continue to enhance the Village Area and ensure the sustainability of
its financial health into the future.
• The Housing Agency will continue to evaluate their program against the 14
indicators set forth by HUD. A strong effort will be made to maintain the
current top level of performance.
21
Building Inspections
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Next Day Inspections
Ave. Inspections per Day
per Person
% of Inspections Requiring
Corrections
Benchmark
95%
20 to 22
10% to 20%
FY 2006-07
98%
19
15%
FY 2007-08
98%
18
13%
FY 2008-09
98%
16
14%
Customer Satisfaction
Customer survey responses
of "good" or "excellent"
Benchmark
90%
FY 2006-07
N/A
FY 2007-08
99%
FY 2008-09
99%
Cost
Cost per
Approved or
Partial
Approval
Inspection
FY 2004-05
$44.92
FY 2005-06
$51.14
FY 2006-07
$78.40
FY 2007-08
$82.68
FY 2008-09
$89.63
Inspectors were able to make 98% of all service requests the next working
day. Work scheduling and coordination of next day inspections by clerical,
inspectors and supervisory staff is a priority and determined in daily
department staff meetings.
The overall number of inspections requiring corrections remained relatively
consistent with the previous period and can be attributed to the effectiveness
of inspector's conveying code requirements to contractors and homeowners.
When an inspector can anticipate potential problems with the progress of a
project and communicate this to applicants, costly rework, and missed or
failed inspections can be avoided. Inspectors are encouraged to be proactive
with assisting both homeowners and superintendents in identifying problem
areas early on in construction.
The current customer satisfaction survey program has been very effective
and has received an excellent response from the public with over 70 surveys
22
returned out of a total number sent out of 218. A data base of all responses
is maintained and the building manager performs a follow up call to allow the
customer to expand on their experience with department staff, plan reviews,
counter contacts and the inspection process.
The percentage of approved inspections compared to the overall inspection
count is consistent with benchmark levels previously established. The 8.9%
increase in the cost per approved inspections is a result of the ratio between
the reduced number of called inspections and the cost to provide the service.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• Overall building code compliance is difficult to observe directly except with
proxy indicators. When service delivery and customer satisfaction levels are
observed in sum and the ratios are within acceptable industry standards, it's
reasonable to conclude that the department is meeting the goal of insuring
Carlsbad's built community is safe and customer service is at a premium
level.
• While the cost per approved or partial approved inspection increased, the
overall department expenditures decreased 3.6% as a result of reduced
staffing costs resulting from not filling an existing position and a temporary
unpaid employee leave cost savings. The decrease is also attributable to a
reduction in the cost of contract plan review services.
• Staffing levels have been reduced by two inspection positions due to the
expiration of limited term contracts. Overall, staffing levels are currently
adequate to insure professional inspection services for the community.
• With declining housing starts and the slowing of the overall economy, infill
projects and an increase in home remodeling versus new construction is
expected. This type of construction inspection can be more time consuming
and require inspectors to spend additional effort to educate and mentor
homeowners. Construction activity is expected to begin a slow recovery in
the third quarter of the fiscal year and inspection staffing levels will need to
be monitored to ensure resources remain consistent with construction
activity.
• A continuing program of cross training within the department will enable a
more flexible approach to future staffing allocation. A cross department
allocation of inspection resources which include increased storm water NPDES
inspection monitoring by building staff will require additional training and
administrative staff support.
23
ACTION PLANS
• Staff will continue to monitor indices monthly and watch for increasing
workload combined with lowered detected corrections.
• Evaluate industry benchmarks by contacting other jurisdictions and perform
a review of their expenditures and service levels.
• Continue an active and consistent program of sending out customer service
portfolios to permit applicants at the time of permit issuance. A self-
addressed, postage-paid survey will be included in every portfolio. This will
assist in ensuring higher numbers of surveys returned next fiscal year.
• Customer service training of field inspectors will be provided to assure they
continue to focus on positive customer contacts at every inspection.
24
Fire
BENCHMARK AND CURRENT RESULTS
Service Delivery
All Emergency Responses
1st Unit on Scene in 6 min.
All Emergency Responses
2nd Unit on Scene in 9 min.
Fire Prevention Plan Review
within 10 business days
Benchmark
90%
90%
90%
FY 2006-07
75%
83%
95%
FY 2007-08
75%
84%
94%
FY 2008-09
74%
84%
64%
Customer Satisfaction
911 Dispatcher
Response Time to Scene
Competence of Paramedics
Courtesy of Paramedics
Procedures Explained
Pain Relieved
Transportation
Overall Satisfaction
Benchmark
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
N/A
95%
95%
FY 2006-07
99%
98%
99%
99%
N/A
N/A
98%
98%
FY 2007-08
98%
99%
96%
99%
N/A
N/A
99%
98%
FY 2008-09
98%
98%
98%
99%
97%
98%
N/A
98%
Cost
Per Capita
FY 2004-05
$119
FY 2005-06
$122
FY 2006-07
$128
FY 2007-08
$139
FY 2008-09
$142
In FY 09, the Carlsbad Fire Department conducted and concluded a
Standards of Cover Study. Per the Standards of Cover Study findings, the
new benchmark for all urgent emergency calls for service, including Fire and
EMS calls, are first unit on scene in 6 minutes and second unit on scene in 9
minutes.
In FY 09, the Carlsbad Fire Department responded to a total of 9084 calls for
emergency services, of which 7196 were for Emergency Medical Services.
25
• The Fire Prevention Division has a responsibility to review new building
development and remodel plans for fire code compliance with a processing
time often (10) working days.
• The cost measure is based upon the Fire Department's net operating cost.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
» The total number of emergency response incidents in FY 09 was 9084, which
represents a slight decrease from 9,503 in FY 08, while the total number of
Emergency Medical Service (EMS) responses in FY 09 was 7196, which
represents a 15% increase in EMS call volume from 6,317 in FY 08.
• In spite of a 14% increase in call volume over the past 3-years and no
additional resources with which to service these requests, Carlsbad achieves
a 90% response time for all calls in 7:24 minutes for 1st unit on scene and
9:55 minutes for the second unit on scene.
• The Carlsbad Fire Department utilizes two separate surveys to evaluate
customer satisfaction. The Public Opinion Survey shows Fire Protection and
Prevention Services being rated as somewhat satisfied to very satisfied by
over 94% of the respondents, with Emergency Medical and Paramedic
Services being rated as somewhat satisfied to very satisfied by over 91% of
the respondents. The second survey tool is a Customer Satisfaction Survey,
which targets EMS patients transported by the Carlsbad Fire Department. In
FY09 the EMS Customer Satisfaction Survey was updated to assess additional
aspects of EMS service delivery. That survey showed an overall 98%
customer satisfaction.
• The intent of the Boundary Drop is to provide the closest available and
appropriate personnel and equipment to the emergency scene.
Carlsbad has an average response time of the 1st unit arriving on scene in
4:49, while the Regional agencies as a whole averaged 5:07.
ACTION PLANS
• The Carlsbad Fire Department will continue to review the Boundary Drop
model. The utilization of the Boundary Drop is being reviewed to create
additional efficiencies in regard to training opportunities and overhead
support that maximize the availability of resources for emergency response.
• Fire Prevention just accepted Request for Proposals for a voluntary outside
plan review process that would return our plan review to within guidelines.
This program will be available to persons submitting plans on an actual cost
plus handling fee basis.
26
Police
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Citizens Sense of Safety-Day
Citizens Sense of Safety-Night
Crime Rate - Violent Crime
Crime Rate - Property Crime
Clearances - Violent Crime
Clearances - Property Crime
Average Response Time
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3
Response Time Distribution
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3
(January - October data)
Benchmark
68%
40%
Lowest third
Lowest third
Top third
Top third
6.0 mins.
15.0 mins.
30.0 mins.
90 %< 6 mins.
90 %< 15 mins.
90 %< 30 mins.
FY 2006-07
86%
51%
Yes
No
No
Yes
6.2 mins.
13.1 mins.
29.0 mins.
58%
74%
74%
FY 2007-08
N/A
Yes
Yes
No
No
5.7 mins.
12.5 mins.
24.8 mins.
62%
76%
77%
FY 2008-09
86%
52%
No
Yes
No
Yes
6.0 mins.
11.8 mins.
22.6 mins.
58%
78%
78%
Customer Satisfaction
Citywide Survey
Crime Victim Survey
Sustained Complaints
Benchmark
80%
90%
0
FY 2006-07
91%
89%
0
FY 2007-08
91%
90%
0
FY 2008-09
90%
91%
1
Cost
Cost per Capita
Benchmark
$268 (2009)
$296 (2008)
FY 2006-07
$232
FY 2007-08
$257
FY 2008-09
$255
27
• Carlsbad continues to exceed the benchmark with regard to citizens' sense of
safety for both the day and nighttime hours.
• Carlsbad's mid-year 2009 overall crime rate meets the bottom one-third of
cities in the county benchmark and marks the second consecutive year
Carlsbad's overall crime rate has declined. Carlsbad's overall crime rate is
also lower than the countywide overall crime rate of 26.1. Although below
the countywide violent crime rate, Carlsbad's mid-year 2009 violent crime
rate just misses the bottom one-third of cities benchmark. The mid-year
2009 property crime rate meets the bottom one-third benchmark and is the
lowest Carlsbad has recorded in the last 10 years.
• Generally, a case is considered "cleared" when at least one person is
arrested, charged, and turned over to court for prosecution. Carlsbad's
overall clearance rate of 24% is a significant improvement from the previous
year's clearance rate and is only one percentage point below the highest
ranked clearance rate in the county. Carlsbad's overall clearance rate is also
better than the countywide total of 17%. Carlsbad's 2008 violent crime
clearance rate of 49% is in the middle third of San Diego cities, missing its
benchmark for 2008. However, this is an improvement over the previous
year's rate of 41% and better than the county average. Carlsbad's property
crime clearance rate meets its top one-third benchmark for 2008; double
that of the previous year and surpassing the county average of.
• Response time is measured from initial call to first officer on scene. Priority 1
calls are generally violent crimes in progress, some non-violent crimes in
progress, armed robbery alarms, injury or no-detail traffic collisions, and
burglaries in progress. Priority 2 calls include non-violent crimes in progress
such as petty theft and burglary alarms. Priority 3 calls include "cold"
reports - a report being taken after the crime has occurred.
• The benchmark for the cost per capita is the average for all comparably sized
municipal law enforcement agencies in San Diego County.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• Since the cost measurement began in 2001, Carlsbad has maintained a cost
per capita for police service at or below the county average and no significant
changes are projected.
• Overall citizen satisfaction with the police department continues to be high.
Crime victims have been surveyed for over 18 years and continue to report a
high level of overall satisfaction.
• With a goal of zero sustained complaints, the department has recorded
between zero and two in each year since 2002. The variance in these small
numbers is likely to continue in the future.
28
Carlsbad residents continue to enjoy a fairly low crime rate compared to the
rest of the county; however, as the economy changes, increases in the crime
rate are expected. Carlsbad has experienced rapid population growth in the
last five years, passing the 100,000 mark in early 2007. In the last 10 years
Carlsbad's population has increased by 28%. Maintaining consistently low
crime rates during rapid population growth is a challenge Carlsbad has met
with success.
The clearance rates vary significantly from year to year; improvements can
be made in the violent crime clearance rate.
ACTION PLANS
• Process improvements will continue in an effort to achieve high clearance
rates.
• The crime rate will continue to be monitored on a monthly basis watching
particularly for indications of an upward trend.
29
The Cultural
Arts Office
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Projected attendance
meets or exceeds actual
attendance over 90% of
the time
Benchmark
90%
FY 2006-07
N/A
FY 2007-08
Yes
FY 2008-09
Yes
Customer Satisfaction
Cannon Art Gallery
Visitor Ratings of good
or excellent
Three- Part- Art
Education Program
Participant Ratings of
good or excellent
Benchmark
90%
90%
2007
N/A
93%
2008
90%
95%
FY 2008-09
92%
100%
Cost
Expenditures per
Capita
Net Operating Cost
per Capita
FY 2004-
05
$8.21
N/A
FY 2005-
06
$9.25
N/A
FY 2006-
07
$9.67
$8.30
FY 2007-
08
$9.73
$8.80
FY 2008-
09
$9.64
$9.04
The Service Delivery measure helps the Cultural Arts Office gauge whether it
is successful in reaching intended audiences for its specific programs. The
figures are a important quantifiable element used during the yearly
budgeting and programming process to help determine whether a program
should be continued or not.
30
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• Customer satisfaction with the Cannon Art Gallery is gathered through a
variety of user surveys. Visitors coming to the Gallery exhibitions and
teachers participating in the Three-Part-Art program are highly satisfied at
the present time, with a service rating well above the benchmark.
• Both the expenditures per capita and the net operating cost per capita are
following their typical growth pattern.
ACTION PLANS
• Audience satisfaction surveys will be conducted at performing arts programs
in the Schulman Auditorium similar to those currently being done for the
exhibition program at the Cannon Art Gallery.
• Surveys of visitors to the Cannon Art Gallery will be expanded to capture
data regarding how first-time visitors learned about the gallery - data which
will then be used to help focus future marketing and publicity efforts.
• The Arts Office will continue to offer programs in a cost effective manner,
aiming to keep its net operating costs per capita at its current level. One
strategy to try to develop ongoing, high quality public programs in a cost-
effective manner will be to forge new strategic partnerships with
organizations such as New Village Arts, the Museum of Making Music and the
Playwrights Project.
• Research will continue in an attempt to find other city-administered arts
programs in the state (Walnut Creek, Irvine, Palo Alto) to gather financial
data and attendance figures for comparative purposes.
31
£ Library
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Ranking among similar-sized
California libraries based on 12
categories
Population 100,000 to 150,000
Benchmark
Top Third
FY2007-08
3rd Place
FY2008-09
3rd Place
Customer Satisfaction
% of customers that report
being somewhat satisfied or
very satisfied with Library
services.
Benchmark
90%
FY 2007-08
97%
FY 2008-09
97%
Cost
Operating Cost
Per Capita
Value of Volunteer Hours
Circulation Services
Operating Costs
Per Transaction
FY 2006-07
$95.82
16,450 hours
$355,000
$.48
FY 2007-08
$90.32
17,954 hours
$401,811
$.52
FY 2008-09
$91.63
16,300 hours
$385,000
$.53
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• The Library fares well when compared to other libraries similar in population.
• Citizens continue to rate satisfaction with Library services above the
benchmark. The consistency and level of the rating has been over 95% for
the past eight years.
32
• Intercept surveys were not conducted in FY 2008-09.
• The circulation cost numbers through FY 2008-09 do not include the full
benefit of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology because
acceptance of fine/fee payment at the self-checkout stations had not yet
been implemented. FY's 2007-08 and FY 2008-09 includes a partial benefit
from the roll out of the RFID system.
• The Value of Volunteer Hours decreased in FY 2008-09 because the literacy
program, the Library's program most supported by volunteers, closed for
several weeks to move into the new Carlsbad City Library Learning Center
location.
ACTION PLAN(S)
• The Service Delivery measure comparison of 12 data points has not led to
significant actionable work to improve library services. Therefore, the Library
is in search of a measure that better addresses the value of the Library or
the difference it makes in the quality of life for the residents of Carlsbad.
• The Library plans to change the focus of a few cost measures and make them
more relevant and useful. While we will continue to measure costs and
efficiencies for internal evaluation, we will reevaluate the components of the
cost measure for future reporting. It is anticipated that this may include
moving away from Children and Reference costs. Our action plan is to
explore measures that better indicate efficiency and resource optimization.
Potential measures may include circulation per FTE, library visitors per FTE,
and program attendance per FTE as indicators of efficient service delivery.
The Library desires to meet anticipated increases in demand for library
services with the same or greater levels of efficiency and library user
satisfaction.
The Library intends to implement conducting intercept surveys as quickly as
is economically feasible because of the importance of data regarding service
demand trends in use.
33
Recreation and
Park Planning
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Adult Sports:
Participants rating on the level of
sportsmanship: Very Good or Excellent
Youth Sports:
Participant rating on the level of
sportsmanship: Very Good or Excellent
Adult Sports:
# of Technical/Ejections/ Suspensions
Youth Sports:
# of Technical/Ejections/ Suspensions
Benchmark
90%
90%
At or below
previous year
At or below
previous year
FY 2006-
07
87%
95%
6/10/9
(25)
0/0/0
(0)
FY 2007-
08
88%
96%
7/4/3
(14)
2/0/0
(2)
FY 2008-
09
91%
96%
11/5/6
(22)
2/0/1
(3)
Customer Satisfaction
Customer Service: City Survey
Rating of Very & Somewhat Satisfied
Benchmark
90%
FY 2006-
07
89%
FY 2007-
08
90%
FY 2008-
09
88%
Cost
Operating Cost Per
Capita
Net Operating Cost Per
Capita
FY 2004-
05
$58.46
$37.64
FY 2005-
06
$59.56
$37.83
FY 2006-
07
$63.27
$40.04
FY 2007-
08
$64.06
$39.30
FY 2008-
09
$63.32
$37.07
34
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• Sportsmanship in the adult leagues exceeded the benchmark for the first
time since its inception in 2001. Although the amount of technical violations
could have been lower from year to year the overall message of
sportsmanship has lead to an increase in repeat participation which includes
over 90% of the teams for the second year in a row. Youth Sports has
continued to be above the benchmark since 2003.
• The customer satisfaction rating appears to be stable based on the results
from the City Survey. The department is beginning to collect data for the
new participant survey questions in relation to an updated quality and
customer service question with the intent of reporting the results next year.
• The slight decrease in costs this year is based on budget reductions and a
more efficient use of resources.
ACTION PLANS
• All Recreation Department service delivery areas will continue to look for
opportunities to reinforce the message of sportsmanship. The sportsmanship
trainings to the community will continue to increase as long as the local
organizations request the additional training.
• The customer service measure will continue to be a focus. Once the
participant survey data has been received for a full year, staff will evaluate
the results to see if the department's outputs for quantity of diverse
programs and quality of services are in line with citizen expectations.
• The Recreation Department will continue to look for alternative funding
opportunities which includes grants and fundraising as well as more cost
effective programming.
35
Parks
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Visual Assessment
Benchmark
90%
FY 2006-07
98%
FY 2007-08
95%
FY 2008-09
93%
Customer Satisfaction
Citizen Survey Ratings
Somewhat Satisfied to
Very Satisfied
Benchmark
90%
FY 2006-07
95%
FY 2007-08
94%
FY 2008-09
94%
Cost
Operating Cost per Acre
FY 2004-
05
$11,591
FY 2005-
06
12,714
FY 2006-
07
$13,559
FY 2007-
08
$14,894
FY 2008-
09
$14,554
• The service delivery measure - as recorded through the Maintenance
Assessment Program (MAP) - reflects the ratings of community representatives,
outside professionals, and City employees as to the overall quality of care a park
is receiving. Areas of focus include irrigation, natural and synthetic turf, tot lots,
parking lots, park furnishings, and sports courts. The overall rating of 93% was
well above the benchmark of 90%.
• The customer satisfaction benchmark was met with 94% of the customer
responses received being Very Satisfied or Somewhat Satisfied.
• The slight decrease in costs this year is based on budget reductions and a more
efficient use of resources.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• Carlsbad is continuing to deliver a high level of service, while keeping pace with
the increasing population, and the demand of citizens for access to open space.
36
The parks system continued to exceed the 90% benchmark in customer
satisfaction responses of Very Satisfied or Somewhat Satisfied for the ninth
straight year on the public opinion survey.
As a result of the statewide drought conditions, mandatory water rationing has
been imposed. In addition, water rates will likely increase significantly over the
next several years. These factors will consequently impact the
appearance/condition of the parks landscaping, and the department's operating
budget.
ACTION PLANS
• Complete the Parks Maintenance Capital Outlay for remodeling the restrooms at
Stagecoach Park, in order to maintain or improve customer satisfaction levels.
• Continue to utilize the Hansen work order and database system for staff
allocations, and equipment/materials distribution as needed to accomplish the
designated objectives.
• Continue to examine, measure, and adjust accordingly, the ratio of maintenance
work between city staff and contractual staff.
• Continue to refine methods in order to perform maintenance and refurbishment
work efficiently.
• Continue to work to ensure conservation of funds and resources in austere
budget times, including the following: applying for additional grants for
qualifying waste compactors/recycling containers; pursuing additional rebates
for water conservation retrofits of selective irrigation devices and sport court
cleaning equipment; and utilizing energy efficient lighting systems in parks
capital outlay/improvement projects, such as tennis court and parking lot
retrofits or additions.
• Manage water usage within park sites wisely and effectively, in regard to the
ongoing statewide drought conditions.
37
Trails
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
New Mileage per year
Benchmark
> 4 miles
FY 2006 -
07
4.5 miles
FY 2007-08
3.8 miles
FY 2008-09
3.3 Miles
Customer Satisfaction
% of customers that
report being somewhat
or very satisfied with the
City Providing Trails &
Walking Paths
Benchmark
90%
FY 2006-07
87%
FY 2007-08
88%
FY 2008-09
88%
Cost
Trail Maintenance
Cost Per Mile
FY 2004-
05
$3,276
FY 2005-06
$4,076
FY 2006-
07
$4,729
FY 2007-
08
$5,133
FY 2008-
09
$5,101
• Carlsbad is continuing to expand it's trails program to keep up with the ever
increasing population and the demand by citizens for access to open space
and trails.
• The Coastal Rail Trail is not included in the benchmark results due to the
unique nature of this trail.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• The mileage added into the trails system is just below the benchmark of
opening up trails to the public. In FY 2008-9, the lower trail mileage can be
attributed to the impact of the economy and private development. In the
past five years, private development has contributed too much of the new
trail mileage coming into the system. It is anticipated that if residential and
commercial development picks up in the future, that trail development will
also increase and contribute more towards meeting the new trail mileage
benchmark.
38
Trail Maintenance Costs - Costs per mile are still within the benchmark.
The City's trail volunteer program continues to grow in both the number of
volunteers as well as the number of projects completed by volunteers. It is
anticipated that this trend will continue in 2010. The volunteers help to keep
the trail maintenance costs within the benchmark.
Carlsbad residents continue to view open space and trails as an important
quality of life issue. Based on the first survey results, additional trails and
walking paths are desired.
ACTION PLANS
Continue to require public trail easements and the construction of trails as
part of ongoing private development for trails identified in the Citywide Trails
Master Plan that fall within private development areas.
Continue to process Acceptance Agreements for Irrevocable Offers of
Dedication for Citywide public trail easements that were previously rejected
as part of private development.
Continue the planning, development and construction of those trails that
have been identified in the Trails Master Plan that will occur on public lands
(Example: Lake Calavera). It is anticipated that with approval by the
resource agencies of the Lake Calavera Trails Master Plan in 2009, that the
City will once again have the opportunity to meet the Service Delivery
benchmark of providing four miles of new trail annually. However it should be
noted that the trails in the Lake Calavera area will be improved by volunteers
and through the funds provided in the CIP budget. The development of trails
in the Lake Calavera area can compensate for the downturn in privately built
trails that can be expected to continue until residential and commercial
development picks up.
39
Potable Water
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Total leaks and breaks
per 100 miles of water
pipe in the system.
% of all water samples
testing bacteria-free
Benchmark
<32.7
98%
FY 2006-07
Not reported
100%
FY 2007-08
30.4
99.8%
FY 2008-09
29.1
100%
Customer Satisfaction
Citywide Survey
Benchmark
90%
FY 2006-07
91%
FY 2007-08
91%
FY 2008-09
89%
Cost
Cost per acre-foot of
water
% of unaccounted for
water
Benchmark
N/A
<6%
FY 2006-07
$972
3.0%
FY 2007-08
$1,047
5.2%
FY 2008-09
$1,139
6.3%
• Water service citywide is provided by three separate water agencies; the
Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD), the Olivenhain Municipal Water
District and the Vallecitos Water District. The CMWD service area covers
approximately 85% of the city and generally covers the area north of La
Costa Avenue.
• The ratio of leaks/breaks indicator measures the water distribution system
integrity.
• The ratio of water line leaks and breaks per 100 miles of pipelines in the
system is slightly below the Amercian Water Works Association (AWWA)
median average.
• The cost per acre foot of water includes potable water purchases from the
San Diego County Water Authority.
40
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• Potable (i.e., drinking) bacteriological water quality continued to exceed
State health requirements.
• The percentage of unaccounted for water has been increasing over time, this
is due in part to a backlog of meter replacements that will be addressed in
the automated meter reading program.
ACTION PLANS
• Significant water system failure trends or findings will be reported to the
Engineering Division for analysis and recommendation.
• Staff will implement two out of the 15 phases of the AMR program during FY
2009-10. The first installation phase is focused on high use, commercial
meters. The AMR meters will help detect water leaks behind the meter and
within the distribution system. Detecting and eliminating leaks will help
bring the water loss figures down.
• Staff will review the ratio of planned maintenance activities compared to
reactive maintenance activities and observe trends. A more comprehensive
picture of asset management effectiveness will show a trend with increased
activities focused on planned maintenance.
41
Recycled Water
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Total leaks and breaks
per 100 miles of pipe in
the system.
Benchmark
32.7
FY 2006-07
Not reported
FY 2007-08
0.0
FY 2008-09
7.8
Cost
Cost per acre-foot of
water produced
Benchmark
N/A
FY 2006-07
$794
FY 2007-08
$686
FY 2008-09
$733
The Carlsbad Municipal Water District's Phase II Recycled Water Plant
produces recycled water that is used within the service area. In addition, the
District continues to buy recycled water via two inter-agency recycled water
purchase agreements with the Leucadia Wastewater Authority and Vallecitos
Water District.
The total leaks and breaks per 100 miles of pipe in the system is a measure
of the systems integrity. Due to the relative newness of the recyled water
system, there were very few leaks or breaks in the system.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• The number of recycled water connections increased from 570 in FY 2007-08
to 614 in FY 2008-09, an increase of 8%. Any new recycled water
connections ultimately reduce the City's demand on the potable water
system.
• The favorable system integrity rate is due to the relative newness of the
system; however, now that the system is aging, resources will need to be
allocated to maintenance, inspection and repair activities of the distribution
system.
42
ACTION PLANS
• Significant recycled water system failure trends or findings will be reported to
the Engineering Division for analysis and recommendation.
• Staff will review current recycled water purchase contracts to determine
opportunities for enhanced cost effectiveness and/or improved efficiencies.
• Staff will continue working on the recycled water purchase agreement with
Leucadia Wastewater District due to expire in 2011.
43
Sewer
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
No. of overflows per
100 miles of sewer
main
Benchmark
0
FY2006-07
4.91
FY 2007-08
2.46
FY 2008-09
1.39
Customer Satisfaction
Citywide Survey
Benchmark
90%
FY 2006-07
88%
FY 2007-08
92%
FY 2008-09
91%
Cost
Cost per million gallons
of sewage
Benchmark
$2,256 (FY08)
$2,224 (FY09)
FY 2006-07
$2,150
FY 2007-08
$2,187
FY 2008-09
$2,461
Sewer service citywide is provided by three separate agencies; the City of
Carlsbad, the Leucadia Wastewater District and the Vallecitos Water District.
Pursuant to the State-mandated requirements to achieve a goal of zero spills
(i.e., "Waste Discharge Requirement for Sanitary Sewer Systems" (WDR)),
the benchmark for the number of overflows per 100 miles of sewer main is
zero.
Customer satisfaction exceeded the benchmark and does not show a
statistically significant difference compared to the results in prior years.
The cost benchmark is based on the results of a survey conducted by the
American Water Works Association (AWWA) in 2007. The $2,224 per million
gallons benchmark is the median score for all agencies surveyed within the
50,001 to 100,000 customer base category adjusted for inflation.
44
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• The number of sewage overflows per 100 miles of sewer main is the lowest it
has been in the past 6 years and is below the AWWA 2007 median average
of 2.79. However, compared to sanitary sewer system utilities of similar size
in San Diego County, Carlsbad ranked in the bottom quartile based on the
overflow per 100 miles rate.
• The FY 2008-09 overflow rate per 100 miles experienced another reduction,
similar to what the city experienced in FY 2007-08.
• During FY 2008-09, wastewater collections rented a third combination
cleaning truck and employed an additional two temporary workers in order to
complete the cleaning of the entire gravity sewer system consisting of sewer
mains 12" and smaller. This was the first year that all mains of that size
were cleaned in a single year.
• Two potential overflows were prevented by the SmartCover™ technology
during FY 2008-09.
• The cost increase is largely attributed to the energy expenses at Encina
Wastewater Authority.
ACTION PLANS
• Pursuant to the WDR requirement to achieve a goal of zero spills, staff will
continue its maintenance schedule for preventive maintenance sewer line
inspection and monitoring work to proactively eliminate the number of
overflows.
• The Wastewater Division will be coordinating the optimization plan which
consists of deploying two "vactor" trucks and a rodding trailer to conduct the
cleaning of the sewer system. This shift in resources will allow existing staff
to complete the cleaning in a more cost effective manner.
• The CIP projects that were started in FY 2008-09 will be continued in a joint
effort with the Engineering staff.
• Staff has initiated a program to conduct point repairs of troublesome sewer
lines where roots have intruded through joints. In addition, easement areas
which have been prone to a high incidence of roots are being monitored and
the manholes being kept free of roots.
• Staff will assess and evaluate the benefits of installing and monitoring the
radio-wave based system (SmartCover™) at lift stations.
• As of October 2009, the City of Carlsbad allowed the Encina Wastewater
Authority (EWA) to begin receiving SmartCover alarms from the VC trunk
45
sensor located just upstream of the Buena Vista lift station which is owned by
Carlsbad and Vista, but operated by EWA. This will allow EWA staff to be
notified in the event of any problems stemming from that lift station. Both
Carlsbad and EWA will respond accordingly.
Complete the optimization plan for the annual cleaning of the sewer system
which will allow staff to complete the annual cleaning in a more cost effective
manner.
Staff will meet with EWA and review the methodology for calculating
Carlsbad's proportionate share of EWA's annual costs to ensure accuracy.
46
Solid Waste
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Annual Disposal Rate
Annual Diversion Rate
Benchmark
<8.4 Ibs.
> 50%
2007
7.0 Ibs
58%
2008
6.5 Ibs.
61%
2009
N/A
N/A
Customer Satisfaction
Citywide Survey:
Trash
Recycling
Household
Hazardous Waste
Benchmark
90%
90%
90%
FY 2006-07
89%
80%
71%
FY 2007-08
n/a
n/a
n/a
FY 2008-09
89%
80%
66%
Cost
Residential and
Commercial Rates
Benchmark
Commercial:
Lowest Third
Residential:
Lowest Third
FY 2006-07
Yes
Yes
FY 2007-08
Yes
Yes
FY 2008-09
Yes
Yes
• The Annual Disposal Rate is a new measure based on Senate Bill 1016, the
Disposal Measurement System Act of 2008, effective January 1, 2007. This
Act requires Carlsbad to not exceed a maximum amount of 8.4 pounds of
solid waste per person per day.
• The Annual Disposal Rate benchmark is based on solid waste generation from
2003 through 2006.
47
• Assembly Bill 939, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989
required jurisdictions to reduce 50% of waste being disposed into landfills by
2000. The 50% diversion requirement remains under the new measurement
system.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• Customer satisfaction with solid waste services did not experience any
significant changes according to the annual public opinion survey.
• Carlsbad's residential and commercial solid waste adjusted rates continue to
be the lowest in San Diego County.
• Staff does not anticipate any increases in the level of satisfaction without
new or additional services being offered.
• The California Integrated Waste Management Board will be eliminated FY
2011 and staff will be merged with the California Department of
Conservation. Staff does not anticipate any impacts.
• Pending legislation, Assembly Bill 479 and Senate Bill 25, if passed will
require a statewide diversion goal of 75% by 2020. Assembly Bill 32 will
mandate commercial recycling by 2020.
• The economy affects the amount of material in the waste stream. This can
cause a downward trend of the disposal rate or an upward trend in the
diversion rate, giving a false sense of improvement. If and when the
economy improves, the waste stream will increase, thus causing the disposal
rate to increase and the diversion rate to decrease.
ACTION PLANS
• Staff will conduct a comprehensive review of the solid waste program and
develop a long term strategic plan that addresses not only services, but also
disposal options.
• Staff will conduct a comprehensive review of the city solid waste ordinance, if
revisions are required, staff will prepare an updated ordinance for Council
consideration.
• Staff will continue to monitor legislation as it relates to solid waste disposal
and program requirements.
• Staff will continue to promote household hazardous waste programs with the
intention of higher participation.
48
Storm Water
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Notices of Violation received from
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Temporary beach posting due to urban
runoff
% re-sampling within one business day
of receipt of lab results
Benchmark
0
0
100%
FY 2006-
07
4
0
N/A
FY 2007-
08
0
0
100%
FY 2008-
09
0
0
100%
Maintenance
% High priority inlets cleaned
%Non-high priority inlets inspected
% of poor rated inlets cleaned
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Customer Satisfaction
% of high priority reports of dumping
to storm drain dispatched within 30
minutes
% of high priority reports of dumping
to storm drain with inspector on scene
within 45 minutes
% of Carlsbad residents reporting that
they have seen or heard messages on
water pollution prevention
Benchmark
90%
90%
75%
FY 2006-
07
98%
N/A
61%
FY 2007-
08
100%
N/A
59%
FY 2008-
09
N/A
100%
75%
Cost
Cost per capita for Engineering - Storm Program
Cost per capita for Storm Water Protection program
Cost per capita for Existing Development - Maintenance
Total cost per capita for Storm Water Protection Citywide
FY 2007-
08
$3.65
$12.00
$7.93
$23.58
FY 2008-
09
$3.22
$10.42
$9.71
$23.35
The City strives to implement programs to reduce pollution in urban runoff
including programs to regulate public and private land development during
each of the three major phases of urban development, the planning,
construction and existing development (or use) phases.
49
The City's goal is to have zero Notices of Violation (NOV) related to the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal permit,
and the results could be considered an indication of overall compliance with
the program. This goal was achieved in FY 2008-09.
The City's goal is to have no temporary beach postings due to urban run-off
as monitored in the Coastal Storm Drain Monitoring Program (CSDMP). This
goal was achieved in FY 2008-09.
The NPDES Storm Water Permit requires follow up investigations when
CSDMP results exceed state water quality objectives. The City's requirement
is to conduct follow-up investigations within one business day of receiving
exceedance results from the laboratory. This requirement was met in FY
2008-09.
The City has met all benchmarks for storm drain (inlets) cleaning and
inspection.
In the past, complaint response measure focused on the response time,
which is the time from the creation of the Request For Action (RFA) issue to
the time of the first action step, of staff dispatch, to more accurately reflect
the response time of Storm Water Protection Staff, this measure was
modified for FY 2008-09 to show the time from call receipt to the time an
inspector is on-site at the location in question.
The City's goal is to ensure that 75% or more of the citizenry report that
they have seen or heard about ways to prevent water pollution each year.
The City accomplished this goal in FY09. This may be a result of increased
regional efforts to educate the public about Storm Water Pollution prevention
via various media channels, including newspapers, radios and television.
This is the second year of new cost measures, which consider the City's cost
to provide storm water pollution compliance in the planning, construction and
existing-development phases. These measures provide a more holistic
approach than the prior cost measures, which only looked at existing-
development costs.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• No beach postings from urban run-off have occurred in the last several
years.
• No NOVs related to the NPDES Storm Water Permit have been received in the
last 2 years.
• FY 2008-09 is the first year that we have achieved the benchmark of 75% of
Carlsbad citizens reported hearing or seeing messages related to storm water
pollution prevention.
50
In all cases of high priority reports of washing or dumping material to the
storm drain, an inspector arrived on scene of the complaint within 45
minutes.
ACTION PLANS
Develop and or refine measures to reflect outcomes of citywide activities
relating to the three major phases of the permit, development planning,
construction and existing development (or use).
Continue to focus on regional and jurisdictional storm water education
programs to affect increased awareness of and changes in citizen behavior
toward storm water pollution.
Continue to implement new and revised programs to ensure compliance with
the NPDES Municipal Permit and the 2008 Jurisdictional Urban Run-off
Management Program (JURMP) document, including training City staff and
emphasizing the importance of compliance with the Municipal Storm Water
Permit.
Monitor budgets and expenditures to ensure that the City is receiving the
most cost-effective services possible with respect to storm water pollution
prevention citywide.
As the City enters a transition and realignment period, ensure that a smooth
transition of program responsibilities and systems for tracking costs related
to NPDES compliance are in place.
51
Street Maintenance
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Street light repairs
completed within 10
days
Recall % of city signal
lights
% of Primes and Majors
Striped
Percentage of time that
the desired response
times for sidewalk
repairs are met
Benchmark
90%
Not to exceed
1%
100%
90%
FY 2006-07
82%
0%
New
N/A
FY 2007-08
95%
0%
53%
67%
FY 2008-09
97%
0%
100%
80%
Customer Satisfaction
Citywide Public Opinion
Survey: Repair and
maintenance of local
streets and roads
Citywide Public Opinion
Survey: City's
management of traffic
congestion
Benchmark
90%
90%
FY 2006-07
86%
64%
FY 2007-08
84%
68%
FY 2008-09
87%
70%
Cost
Annual maintenance cost
per lane-mile
Benchmark
$6,016 (2008)
$5,976 (2009)
FY 2006-07
$6,579
FY 2007-08
$6,246
FY 2008-09
$5,888
• Street light repairs were completed within 10 days 97% percent of the time in
FY 2008-09, a 2% increase over the FY08 results.
• The sidewalk repair response times for urgent hazards that require less than 48
hours for mitigation is somewhat less than the benchmark of 100%, but a
significant increase over FY 2007-08's rate of 67%. This is due to the continued
focus on mitigation of safety and trip hazards.
52
• Striping crews were able to achieve 100% striping of Primes and Majors through
a reassignment of duties related to graffiti abatement away from the Paint Crew.
• The 90% benchmarks for the customer satisfaction measures are based on
residents who rate the measures as "somewhat satisfied" or "very satisfied".
• Maintenance costs were lower in the last fiscal year, predominantly due to mid-
year budget cuts.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the law governing all
traffic control devices, requires that a retro-reflectivity program for signs be in
place by 2012. This mandate will require testing of all signs, and replacement of
signs that do not meet reflectivity standards. Non-compliance with the MUTCD
ultimately can result in the loss of federal-aid funds as well as a significant
increase in tort liability. This requirement is certain to increase costs for Street
Maintenance in the next few years, as the program is developed and
implemented.
• Staff continues to look at funding opportunities, including grants, and
alternatives to the General fund to finance Street Maintenance activities. These
actions may have a positive impact on overall costs as reflected in the Streets,
Signals and Street Lighting budgets.
• During Ft 2009-10, the City will begin a project to replace all Street Lights in
the City with energy efficient induction lighting fixtures. This will result in
significant savings to the Street Lighting Assessment Districts due to reduced
energy and maintenance costs.
ACTION PLANS
• Continued implementation of the zone inspection and work plan that is now
being used to inspect all concrete and asphalt work and to coordinate repair
work with City Overlay program.
• Review supply contracts and work with vendors to improve cost efficiency of
purchasing supplies and materials such as paint.
• Review street light repair benchmark to determine if there are any safety
concerns that would merit a shorter timeline.
• Implement a proactive zone assessment to identify concrete repairs and
coordinate with the overlay program.
• Ensure that all work orders are closed in a timely manner to ensure accurate
data gathering capability.
53
Traffic Engineering
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
% of road segments that
meet the Caltrans collision
rates per million vehicle
miles
Roadway Rideability -
Overall Condition Index
(OCI)
Benchmark
100%
Average OCI
above 80
100% of
Roadways with
an OCI above
70
FY 2006-07
94%
81
90%
FY 2007-08
90%
80
89%
FY 2008-09
86%
78
87%
Customer Satisfaction
Average travel time on El
Camino Real
Average travel time on
Palomar Airport Road
Benchmark
June 2000
travel times
June 2000
travel times
FY 2006-07
0 of 6
measures met
the
benchmark
1 of 6
measures met
the
benchmark
FY 2007-08
3 of 6
measures met
the benchmark
2 of 6
measures met
the benchmark
FY 2008-09
2 of 6
measures met
the benchmark
2 of 6
measures met
the benchmark
The Roadway Rideability Overall Condition Index (OCI) is a value between 1
and 100, which is generated by the pavement management software based
on the data collected during roadway condition surveys, construction
activity, and deterioration curves for various types of pavement. A higher
OCI value indicates a better roadway condition.
The average travel time on El Camino Real measures the average of actual
travel times from one point to the other, including delays, in relationship to
peak (morning commute/evening commute) and off-peak periods. The peak
periods are 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. (the a.m. peak period), 9:15 a.m. to
11:15 a.m. (the off-peak period), and 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. (the p.m.
peak period).
54
The average travel time on Palomar Airport Road measures the average of
actual travel times from one point to the other, including delays, in
relationship to peak (morning commute/evening commute) and off-peak
periods. The peak periods are 6:45 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. (the a.m. peak
period), 9:45 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. (the off-peak period), and 4:00 p.m. to
6:00 p.m. (the p.m. peak period).
The benchmark(s) compare travel times on El Camino Real and Palomar
Airport Road to baseline rates that were collected in June 2000. To meet the
benchmarks, travel times shall not exceed the baseline rates.
In FY 2008-09, two (2) of six (6) measures on El Camino Real were below
the benchmark. Compared to FY08, three (3) of six (6) measures, or 50%,
were below the baseline rates.
In FY 2008-09, two (2) of six (6) measures on Palomar Airport Road were
below the benchmark. This compares to FY08 when two (2) of six (6)
measures, or 33%, also were below the baseline rates.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• As the construction of new roadways associated with development slows in
the future, and absent any refinements to the Pavement Management
Program, the OCI will tend to degrade at a faster rate. To counteract this
trend, the Action Plan includes the completion of a citywide condition survey
and an evaluation of the current pavement management strategy and
budgetary needs based on an analysis of the updated condition data. A
consultant has been retained to assist in this effort.
• In 2008, 86% of the roadway segments measured for this report were within
the statewide collision rate compared to 90% in 2007. In 2008, the number
of reported traffic collisions decreased from 867 to 736 collisions compared
to the previous year. With the economic downturn in 2008, there has been
a noticeable decline in activity associated with residential, commercial and
industrial development. Regardless of lower traffic volumes, the number of
vehicles traveling into and passing through Carlsbad in 2008 still resulted in
conflicts and collisions between vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians.
ACTION PLANS
• With the assistance of a consultant retained by the city, complete a citywide
roadway condition survey and load the data into the selected pavement
management software. Use this data to complete an analysis of potential
pavement management strategies and budgetary needs in the future.
• Completion of current and future construction projects on Palomar Airport
Road and El Camino Real will help improve travel times. The widening of El
Camino Real from Chestnut Avenue to Tamarack could potentially reduce
55
travel times along El Camino Real. The addition of a westbound right turn
lane on Palomar Airport Road at Paseo Del Norte, under construction
currently, should also reduce travel times.
• Staff will develop a traffic signal timing plan that will allow the intersection of
El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road to be coordinated with the other
intersections along each corridor. This is expected to reduce travel times on
Palomar Airport Road in the a.m. and p.m. peak periods.
• The City recently funded a project to reduce the number of traffic signal false
calls by relocating the vehicle detection cameras at several critical
intersections on El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road.
• The City funded a project to update the software used by the video detection
system to reduce the number of false calls resulting from glare and fog
conditions. These actions should improve travel times on both El Camino Real
and Palomar Airport Road during foggy conditions or when glare impacts the
video detection cameras.
• Recent adjustments to the traffic signal timing plans on El Camino Real,
Palomar Airport Road, Rancho Santa Fe Road, Carlsbad Village Drive, and
Cannon Road are expected to help reduce congestion.
56
Facilities
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Responses to Visual
Assessments
Benchmark
90%
2007
90%
2008
93%
2009
90%
Customer Satisfaction
Customer Survey
Responses - rated as
"good or excellent"
Work Order Response
Time - Emergency
Work Order Response
Time - High Priority
Work Order Response
Time - Medium Priority
Work Order Response
Time - Low Priority
Benchmark
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
2007
88%
94%
94%
96%
95%
2008
83%
100%
97%
97%
97%
2009
90%
100%
98%
97%
95%
Cost
Maintenance cost per
square foot.
Benchmark
$8.62 (2008)
$8.57 (2009)
FY 2007-08
$5.85
FY 2008-09
$6.12
The Service Delivery measure reflects the ratings of community representatives,
outside professionals, and City employees as to the overall quality of care a
facility is receiving.
The Service Delivery results continue to remain high, exceeding the benchmark.
The Internal survey result from 2009 showed an improvement of 7% from
2009's survey, with 90% positive feedback. An analysis of internal survey
comments indicates continued concerns with Heating, Ventilation and Air
Conditioning (HVAC) and contracted janitorial services.
57
All four sub categories of work order response times exceeded the 90%
benchmark. Low priority work orders slipped slightly, which might be expected
with increased workload and budget cuts.
The cost benchmark is based on a national mean as reported by the
International Facilities Management Association.
The calculation of the maintenance cost per square foot includes square footage
for all City-maintained facilities.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• Overall costs are expected to increase in future years as the cost of raw
materials, energy, water, and repair parts continue to rise. In austere economic
times, it is projected that fewer new buildings will be brought on-line, which may
result in greater use of existing facilities, which will put greater demands on
both custodial and maintenance staff.
ACTION PLANS
• Continue to analyze which tasks can best be contracted out and which should
remain the function of City staff.
• Seek out energy efficient solutions to building maintenance needs that can heat,
light and cool the facilities more efficiently. Use incentive and rebate programs
where available to install energy efficient systems.
• Improve Outreach to facilities user groups to ensure effective communication
and expectation levels, and ultimately address small problems before they
become large, costly repair issues.
• Ensure all new facility sites such as the Joint Safety Training Center, Alga Norte
Park etc. have accurate CIP assessments completed to adequately resource the
facility maintenance function for these sites once in operation.
• Pursue a formal process to have renovation/remodel requests made by other
departments to ensure funding is provided with the request for service.
• Address items noted from raters comments when prudent.
• Attempt to increase marketing of MAP to increase rating panel size in future
years, to get a more balanced rating.
• Ensure that an increase in square footage of City owned facilities triggers as
increase in staff and outside services budgets.
• Increase use of technology (Laptops) to complete work order information in the
field and improve customer service.
58
Fleet
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Percent of units
available for use
Benchmark
95%
FY 2006-07
97%
FY 2007-08
98%
FY 2008-09
98%
Customer Satisfaction
Customer Survey
Responses - rated as
"good or excellent"
Benchmark
90%
FY 2006-07
88%
FY 2007-08
89%
FY 2008-09
97%
Cost
Costs equal to or lower
than Nation estimates
for equivalent classes
of vehicles
Benchmark
Varies
FY 2006-07
6 of 9 vehicle
classes met
the benchmark
FY 2007-08
6 of 9 vehicle
classes met
the benchmark
FY 2008-09
7 of 9
vehicle
classes met
the
benchmark
• The percent of units available for use reflects the quality of the preventive
maintenance program as indicated by the availability of City vehicles.
• The 9 vehicle classes which costs are compared to are: sedan, police sedan,
light truck, police light truck, medium truck, heavy truck, ambulance, fire
apparatus, and police motorcycles.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• The City's Fleet Operations Division continued to face some challenges this year
with respect to staffing levels, which has impacted everything from costs to
customer service levels. This is reflected in the significant decrease in the 24-
hour preventative maintenance turn-around measure.
• Fuel prices dipped dramatically in FY08, resulting in significant savings in
operating costs. This, plus a move toward right sizing the fleet and improving
fuel efficiency has resulted in savings in operating costs for most vehicle classes.
59
ACTION PLANS
• Attempt to bring Fleet Maintenance Division up to full staffing levels and reduce
dependency on part-time staff.
• Evaluate staffing levels vs. Vehicle Equivalencies using national standards to
determine whether additional maintenance staff should be requested.
• Review the twenty four hour time period and consider an appropriate time
period that meets with the Fleet Maintenance Division's definition of
"preventative maintenance".
• Determine if there is a positive linkage between age of fleet and increasing
maintenance costs.
• Transition from mileage/age criteria to Life Cycle Costing models for vehicle
replacement.
• Continue working with the Fleet Management Committee to downsize vehicles
whenever possible, and working with the Fleet customer base to be more
collaborative in meeting customer needs.
• Consider purchasing modern equipment and reducing the overall age of Fire
Apparatus and Heavy Trucks. Life Cycle Costing models do not support keeping
older or high mileage equipment in service.
• Implement new Fleet Maintenance Management Software to better evaluate the
true cost of operating the City's fleet.
• Develop communication tools, such as newsletters or paycheck stuffers, to
education City staff about the work the Fleet Operations performs.
60
Human Resources
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Employee Turnover
Benchmark
< 6.3%
FY 2006-07
4.8%
FY 2007-08
4.4%
FY 2008-09
2.8%
Cost
Time off due to work
injury
Benchmark
< 5.4 days
FY 2006-07
5.6 days
FY 2007-08
5.1 days
FY 2008-09
5.5 days
The percentage of full-time employees who left the organization during the
reporting period includes resignations and terminations.
Although not included in the data, in FY 2008-09 the number of retirements
was 14, which is the same number of retirements as the previous fiscal year.
14 retirements is the lowest number of retirements since FY 2003-04 when
there were 13.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• City staff has been actively pursuing workers' compensation claim closure by
attending workers' compensation hearings and depositions, delaying claims,
utilizing surveillance, and maintaining high visibility on every claim. These
efforts, in addition to return to work programs, have helped to minimize lost
days of work.
• Excluding the retirement data and comparing the City of Carlsbad's turnover
rate to agencies of similar size, Carlsbad's turnover rate is 3.5 percent less
than the ICMA average.
Last year, the Fire Department employees had 16 claims that were
responsible for 2% of the City's lost work days (8 days). This year there
were 27 workers' compensation claims in the Fire Department. The total
number of lost work days due to all of these claims was 60 days (12% of the
City's total lost work days). The Fire Department continues to promote an
aggressive return to work program to try to decrease their lost work days.
This year the Police Department accounts for over 51% of the number of lost
work days in the City. The department had 33 worker's compensation claims
for a total of 251 lost work days.
For both Police and Fire, the number of lost work days is usually partially
attributed to the provisions of Labor Code Section 4850, which entitles Safety
personnel who are totally temporarily disabled and not at work, full salary up
to one year. This "benefit" often works as a disincentive for employees to
return to work. However, an emphasis on encouraging employees to return
to work in a light duty capacity has helped counteract this disincentive.
ACTION PLANS
Human Resources will continue to assist client departments in succession
planning and forecasting. Exit interviews are provided for all employees that
terminate their employment. The data will be analyzed and made available
to the organization.
City staff is actively pursuing workers' compensation claim closure. The
Human Resources Department will continue to work with client departments
to implement programs that reduce the number of days an employee is out
of the workplace.
62
Information
Technology
Benchmark and Current Results
Service Delivery
Percent of time users are
returned to operational
status after placing call to
Help Desk
Confidence in Service %
reporting satisfied or
greater
Benchmark
Year over year
10% increase
80%
FY 2006-07
New measure
New measure
FY 2007-08
New measure
New measure
FY 2008-09
28%
75%
Customer Satisfaction
% of employees reporting
good or excellent service
Benchmark
90%
FY 2006-07
Survey
conducted
bi-annually
FY 2007-08
81%
FY 2008-09
93.2%
Cost
Mean IT Expenditures as a
Percent of Revenue
Benchmark
5.6%
FY 2006-07
3.47%
FY 2007-08
3.93%
FY 2008-09
2.78%
The percent of time users are returned to operational status after placing a
call to the help desk is a new measure for FY 2008-2009. This measure looks
at increasing the number of calls of opportunity for the help desk year over
year by 10 percent, until the ultimate goal of 80 percent is obtained. A call of
opportunity is defined as a call placed by city staff to the help desk wherein
the help desk has the knowledge levels, tools and access to return the caller
to operational status.
The information technology customer satisfaction survey was extended in FY
2007-08 to include safety services information technology and the
geographic information services departments. After missing the benchmark
in FY 2007-08 this benchmark was achieved in FY 2008-09 with 93.2% of the
Information Technology customers reporting good or excellent service.
The customer confidence measure - 75% of customers reported the service
delivery by the Information Technology Department as satisfied or greater.
63
This is below the benchmark of 80% for FY 2008-09. This is a multi-modal
measurement combining city staff survey results on four different service
delivery/confidence questions. The questions are around staff confidence in:
Keeping IT systems up and running, delivering promised services, using
technology effectively and providing services that are of value to city staff.
The results from all four questions are combined, taking the data from the
satisfied and very satisfied categories.
According to the Info-Tech Research Group's 2007 to 2008 IT Budget &
Staffing report, Government entities spend 5.6% of the revenue, or total
budget, on IT. Government ranks in the middle of industry sectors in terms
of IT spending as a percentage of revenue. The top spending groups within
Government are Federal and State governments (8.1% and 8.2%
respectively), which have significant infrastructures to maintain, which are
interfaced by millions of citizens including social programs, tax collection,
records administration, military operations, and other IT-intensive elements
of government.
TRENDS AND OBSERVATIONS
• The amount spent on Information Technology operations and capital as a
percentage of total revenue is about half of what the fastest growing
government entities are spending, with the organizations reporting 7.9% of
revenues going to IT investment.
• In FY 2008-2009 the City implemented a new technology infrastructure to
improve network speed, reliability and wireless access. Also implemented in
FY 2008-2009 was the technology foundation for the city's new Web site.
ACTION PLANS
• Partner the help desk vendor with the network services, applications
management and desktop divisions of the Information Technology
Department to determine the needed access, tools and security to increase
the help desks ability to solve more trouble calls placed by city staffers.
• Provide leadership in long-range planning, implementation, and maintenance
of information technology for the City of Carlsbad.
• Further refine operations to produce technical and fiscal efficiencies.
Continue to make use of state contracts for cost-effective purchasing
opportunities.
64
Financial Health
Service Delivery Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Long Term Fiscal
Condition: 10-year
financial forecast
Revenues will be
equal to or exceed
expenditures each
year
YES YES YES
Communications
Service Delivery Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Level of
Information 90%82%80%79%
Cost Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Cost Per Capita To Be
Determined $8.90 $11.00 $8.50
The Village Area
Service Delivery Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Gross Annual
Property Tax Value Increase > 5%21%2%4%
Gross Annual
Sales Tax Increase > 3%-1%-4%-10%
Commercial Vacancy
Rates 5% or less 5%5%7%
Cost Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Ratio Public Funding to
Private Investment 1:10 1:62 1:6 1:49
Customer Satisfaction Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Public
Opinion/Customer
Satisfaction –good or
excellent
90% 88%88%88%
Fire
Service Delivery Benchmark FY 07 FY 08 FY 09
All Emergency Responses
1st Unit on Scene in 6 min.90%75%75%74%
All Emergency Responses
2nd Unit on Scene in 9 min. 90%83%84%84%
Fire Prevention Plan Review
within 10 business days 90%95%94%64%
Customer Satisfaction Benchmark FY 07 FY 08 FY 09
Overall Satisfaction 95%98%98%98%
Cost FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09
Per Capita $119 $122 $128 $139 $142
Police
Service Delivery Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Crime Rate –Violent Crime
Crime Rate –Property Crime
Lowest third
Lowest third
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Response Time Priority 1 90%<6 mins.58%62%58%
Customer Satisfaction Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Crime Victim Survey 90%89%90%91%
Cost Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Cost per Capita $268 (FY09)$232 $257 $255
Library
Customer Satisfaction Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
% of customers that report
satisfied or very satisfied 90%96%97%97%
Cost FY06 FY07 FY08 FY08
Operating Cost Per Capita $88.20 $95.82 $90.32 $91.63
Service Delivery Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Ranking among similar-
sized libraries Top Third YES YES YES
Recreation
Customer Satisfaction Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Customer Service: City Survey
Rating of Very & Somewhat Satisfied 90%89%90%88%
Service Delivery Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Adult Sports:Participants rating on the
level of sportsmanship 90%87%88%91%
Youth Sports:Participants rating on the
level of sportsmanship 90%95%96%96%
Cost FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09
Net Operating Cost Per
Capita $35.63 $37.66 $37.81 $40.02 $39.15 $37.07
Parks
Service Delivery Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Visual Assessment 90%98%95%93%
Customer Satisfaction Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Citizen Survey Ratings
Somewhat Satisfied to
Very Satisfied
90%95%94%94%
Cost 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Operating Cost per
Acre $10,774 $11,591 12,714 $13,559 $14,894 $14,554
Trails
Service Delivery Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
New Mileage per Year 4 miles 4.5 miles 3.8 miles 3.3 miles
Customer Satisfaction Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Satisfied with the City
Providing Trails &
Walking Paths
90%87%88%88%
Cost Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Trail Maintenance Cost
Per Mile $2,680 -$6,090 $4,729 $5,133 $5,101
Water
Service Delivery Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Total leaks and breaks
per 100 miles of water
pipe in the system.
<32.7 Not reported 30.4 29.1
Customer Satisfaction Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
% of customers very or
somewhat satisfied 90%91%91%89%
Cost FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09
Cost per acre-foot of
water N/A $936 $1,062 $1,139
Sewer
Service Delivery Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
No. of overflows per
100 miles of sewer
main
0 4.90 2.46 1.39
Customer Satisfaction Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
% of customers who
report being somewhat
or very satisfied
90%88%92%91%
Cost Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Cost per million gallons
(mg) of sewage $2,224 (FY09)$2,167 $2,201 $2,461
Solid Waste
Service Delivery Benchmark 2007 2008 2009
Annual Disposal Rate <8.4 lbs 7.0 lbs 6.5 lbs N/A
Annual Diversion Rate 50%58%61%N/A
Cost Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Residential and
Commercial
Rates
Commercial: Lowest Third Yes Yes Yes
Residential: Lowest Third Yes Yes Yes
Customer Satisfaction Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Public Opinion/Customer
Satisfaction Good to
Excellent
90%
Trash 89%N/A 89%
Recycling 80%N/A 80%
Household Hazardous
Waste 71%N/A 66%
Traffic Engineering
Service Delivery Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
% of all road segments
that meet the Caltrans
collision rates per million
vehicle miles
100%94%90%86%
Roadway -Overall
Condition Index (OCI)
Average OCI
above 80 81 80 78
100% of
Roadways with
OCI above 70
90%89%87%
Customer Satisfaction Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Average travel time on El
Camino Real
June 2000
travel times
0 of 6 measures
met the
benchmark
3 of 6
measures met
the benchmark
2 of 6 measures
met the
benchmark
Average travel time on
Palomar Airport Road
June 2000
travel times
1 of 6 measures
met the
benchmark
2 of 6 measures
met the
benchmark
2 of 6 measures
met the
benchmark
Human Resources
Service Delivery Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Employee Turnover ≤ 6.3%4.8%4.4%2.8%
Cost Benchmark FY07 FY08 FY09
Time off due to work
injury ≤ 5.4 days 5.6 days 5.1 days 5.5 days
•Next Steps
•Questions
District
1
2009 Public Opinion Survey Report
Presented to the City of Carlsbad
January 2010
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures.................................................................................................................. ii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. iii
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 4
Introduction to the Study .............................................................................................. 4
Methodology Overview ................................................................................................. 4
Key Findings ................................................................................................................ 4
Notable Changes from the 2008 and 2007 Surveys ..................................................... 6
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 8
Satisfaction with City Services ....................................................................................... 10
Satisfaction: Comparison to Other Cities .................................................................... 12
Quality of Life ................................................................................................................ 13
Perceived Direction .................................................................................................... 15
Quality of Life: Comparison to Other Cities ................................................................ 17
Number One Way to Increase Quality of Life ................................................................ 19
Sense of Community ..................................................................................................... 21
Sense of Community: Comparison to Other Cities ..................................................... 25
Safety ............................................................................................................................ 26
Safety: Comparison to Other Cities ............................................................................ 28
Confidence in City Government ..................................................................................... 30
Satisfaction with Specific City Services ......................................................................... 32
Ratings for Contracted City Services ............................................................................. 34
Carlsbad Library Programs and Services ...................................................................... 35
Satisfaction with City-Resident Communication ............................................................. 36
Information Sources ...................................................................................................... 38
Carlsbad City Channel ............................................................................................... 40
Region’s Water Supply .................................................................................................. 41
Preventing Pollution of Creeks, Lagoons, and Ocean .................................................... 43
Source of Information ................................................................................................. 44
Action Taken Based on Information ........................................................................... 45
Experience Visiting the Carlsbad Village ....................................................................... 47
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 51
Appendix A: Toplines .................................................................................................. A-1
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Satisfaction with City Services ......................................................................... 10
Figure 2 Satisfaction with City Services: Comparison to Other Cities ............................ 12
Figure 3 Quality of Life Rating ....................................................................................... 13
Figure 4 Quality of Life Direction ................................................................................... 15
Figure 5 Quality of Life Rating: Comparison to Other Cities ........................................... 17
Figure 6 Quality of Life Direction: Comparison to Other Cities ....................................... 18
Figure 7 Number One Way to Increase Quality of Life (n=209) ..................................... 19
Figure 8 Level of Agreement with Items ........................................................................ 22
Figure 9 Sense of Community Index Levels .................................................................. 23
Figure 10 Sense of Community: Comparison to Other Cities ......................................... 25
Figure 11 Safety in Carlsbad ......................................................................................... 26
Figure 12 Safety Walking Alone During the Day: Comparison to Other Cities ............... 28
Figure 13 Safety Walking Alone After Dark: Comparison to Other Cities ....................... 29
Figure 14 Confidence in City Government to Make Decisions ....................................... 30
Figure 15 Satisfaction with Local Issues and Services .................................................. 32
Figure 16 Ratings for Contracted City Services ............................................................. 34
Figure 17 Awareness of Library Programs and Services ............................................... 35
Figure 18 Satisfaction with City-Resident Communication ............................................. 36
Figure 19 Frequency of Using Information Sources ....................................................... 38
Figure 20 Overall Use of Information Sources ............................................................... 39
Figure 21 Frequency Watching Carlsbad City Channel (n=589) .................................... 40
Figure 22 Primary Reason Watch Carlsbad City Channel (n=285) ................................ 40
Figure 23 Perception of Region’s Water Supply ............................................................ 41
Figure 24 Informed about Preventing Water Pollution ................................................... 43
Figure 25 Source of Pollution Prevention Information (n=743)....................................... 44
Figure 26 Action Taken Based on Pollution Prevention Information (n=743) ................. 45
Figure 27 Frequency Visiting Carlsbad’s Downtown Village .......................................... 47
Figure 28 Experience Visiting Carlsbad Village (n=970) ................................................ 49
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Number One Way to Increase Quality of Life .................................................... 20
Table 2 Sense of Community Index ............................................................................... 21
Table 3 Confidence in City Government to Make Decisions .......................................... 30
Table 4 Satisfaction with Local Issues and Services...................................................... 33
Table 5 Overview of Project Methodology ..................................................................... 51
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
The City of Carlsbad and its Performance Measurement Resource Team partnered with
BW Research Partnership, Inc. (BW Research) to conduct its annual public opinion
survey of residents for the third consecutive year.
The main research objectives of the 2009 study were to:
• assess residents’ perceptions regarding satisfaction with city services, quality of life,
sense of community, safety in their neighborhood, city government, and city-
resident communication;
• evaluate awareness of specific library services and programs;
• identify residents’ views regarding the region’s water supply as well as their
awareness of water pollution prevention; and
• assess residents’ experience visiting the Carlsbad Village.
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
The city-wide telephone survey of residents was administered from September 10
through 24, 2009 and averaged 20 minutes in length. In total, a statistically
representative sample of 1,000 Carlsbad residents 18 years and older completed a
telephone survey, resulting in a maximum margin of error +/- 3.08 percent (at the 95
percent level of confidence) for questions answered by all 1,000 respondents.
KEY FINDINGS
Based on the analysis of the survey data, BW Research is pleased to present the
following key findings. Please refer to the body of the report for a more comprehensive
analysis of findings, including comparisons among resident sub-groups.
• Eighty-nine percent of residents were either “Very” (56%) or “Somewhat” satisfied
(33%) with the job the City of Carlsbad is doing to provide city services.
• Ninety-six percent of residents provided a positive rating for the quality of life in
Carlsbad (“Excellent” 62%, “Good” 34%).
• Six out of ten residents felt the quality of life in Carlsbad was “Staying about the
same,” 15 percent viewed it as “Getting better,” and 21 percent viewed it as “Getting
worse.”
o Stop building and growth and fix the traffic problems were cited as the top
ways to increase the quality of life among those who felt it was getting worse
or were dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide services.
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
5
• Thirty-eight percent of residents were classified as having a “High” sense of
community, 48 percent fell into the “Medium” category, and 13 percent were
classified as having a “Low” sense of community.
• Ninety-seven percent of residents felt safe walking alone in their neighborhood
during the day (86% “Very safe”) and 85 percent of residents feel safe walking
alone after dark (52% “Very safe”).
• Seventy-four percent of residents have confidence in Carlsbad city government to
make decisions that positively affect the lives of its community members.
• Over 90 percent of residents who provided an opinion were satisfied with the City’s
efforts to:
o “Provide library services” (97% satisfaction),
o “Maintain city parks” (94%),
o “Provide fire protection and prevention services” (94%),
o “Provide sewer services” (91%), and
o “Provide law enforcement services” (90%).
• For the City’s contracted services, residents who provided an opinion rated “Trash
collection services” (89% “Excellent” or “Good”) and “Recycling collection services
(80%) the most favorably.
• Eighty-eight percent of residents were aware that the library offered computers with
Internet access, 68 percent were aware of cultural events at the library, and 65
percent were aware of its reading and other literacy skills improvement programs.
• Seventy-nine percent of residents were either “Very” (29%) or “Somewhat” (50%)
satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents.
• When looking for information about city issues, services, or activities, residents
were most likely to refer to the community services or recreation guide (79% use)
and television news (77%).
• Twenty-nine percent of residents watched the Carlsbad City Channel, with most
watching to get information on the City and community events.
• When asked how they would characterize the region’s current water supply, 59
percent felt it was in shortage and 29 percent thought there was an adequate
supply. Two percent thought the region was in a surplus water period and ten
percent did not know or declined to comment on the state of the region’s current
water supply.
• Seventy-four percent of residents have seen or heard information in the past year
about how to prevent the pollution of local creeks, lagoons, and the ocean.
o The most frequently cited sources of the pollution prevention information
were television and the newspaper.
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
6
o Nineteen percent of residents who had been exposed to information indicated
that they had not done anything or declined to state what they had done
based on the information they heard.
o Twenty-eight percent of those who recalled hearing or seeing pollution
prevention information properly disposed of hazardous waste, 19 percent
used a commercial car wash, 12 percent used environmentally friendly
products, and 11 percent cleaned up trash at parks and beaches.
• Ninety-seven percent of residents have visited Carlsbad’s Downtown Village.
o The majority of residents visited at least once a week (53%), 25 percent
visited once a month or more (but less than once a week), and 18 percent
visited the Village less than once a month.
o Eighty-eight percent of residents who visited Carlsbad’s Downtown Village
rated their experience positively.
NOTABLE CHANGES FROM THE 2008 AND 2007 SURVEYS
Below are the most notable changes in Carlsbad residents’ opinions, perceptions, and
behaviors from the 2008 and 2007 surveys.
• Fewer residents in 2009 felt the quality of life was “Getting better” (2009: 15%;
2008: 21%; 2007: 22%) and more felt it was “Staying about the same” (significant
increase from 2007) or did not know or declined to state (increase from 2008).
• The percentage of residents that felt the quality of life was “Getting worse” remained
consistent with the levels reported in 2008 but was statistically lower than the
percentage reported in 2007 (2009: 21%; 2008: 20%; 2007: 27%).
o Although still cited by 37 percent of those who felt the quality of life was
getting worse, the percentage who indicated that the City should stop building
and halt growth decreased significantly from previous years (2009: 37%;
2008: 48%; 2007: 52%).
o In 2009, residents were much more likely to cite an economic-related
response such as the need for a “Better economic plan/ don’t waste money/
lower taxes” or “More jobs” (2009: 14%; 2008: 4%; 2007: 0%).
• Compared with 2007, more residents in both 2008 and 2009 were classified as
having a “Medium” sense of community (2009: 48%; 2008: 46%; 2007: 40%) and
less as having a “High” sense of community (2009: 38%; 2008: 41%; 2007: 48%).
o The shift was driven by fewer residents in 2009 disagreeing with the items “I
have almost no influence over what my neighborhood is like” and “Very few of
my neighbors know me.” Fewer also indicated a strong sense of community
when directly asked.
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
7
o There was, however, an increase from 2008 to 2009 in the number of
residents who agreed that “My neighbors and I want the same things from
this community,” bringing the 2009 percentage back in line with 2007.
• Confidence in city government has declined each year, with a statistically significant
decrease evidenced from 2007 to 2009 (2009: 74%; 2008: 76%; 2007: 79%).
• A number of positive improvements in overall satisfaction with specific city services
were evidenced in 2009.
o From 2008 to 20091
o Although statistically unchanged from 2008 to 2009, residents’ reported
statistically higher satisfaction from 2007 to 2009 with the City’s efforts to
“Manage traffic congestion on city streets” and “Manage residential growth
and development.”
, a statistically higher percentage of residents were
satisfied with the City’s efforts to “Protect water quality in the City's creeks,
lagoons, and the ocean” and “Provide enough undeveloped areas in the City
for habitat protection.”
o The only service to show a decline was residents’ satisfaction with the City’s
efforts to “Provide water services” from 2007 to 2009.
• Compared with 2008, Carlsbad residents in 2009 were much more likely to have an
opinion about the water supply. A statistically higher percentage indicated that the
region was experiencing a water shortage and fewer residents rated the water
supply as adequate.
• The percentage of residents who had heard information in the past year about
preventing pollution of local creeks, lagoon, and the ocean increased substantially
over previous years (2009: 74%; 2008: 57%; 2007; 60%).
o Compared with the 2008 and 2007 surveys, residents in 2009 were more
likely to indicate that they had taken action to prevent water pollution.
1 Items not asked in 2007.
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
8
CONCLUSIONS
BW Research offers the following conclusions from the 2009 resident survey for the City
of Carlsbad.
The current recession may have started as a national or even international
phenomenon, but the impact of this economic downturn are being felt-- right here in
Carlsbad. Over the last two years, the unemployment rate in Carlsbad has gone from 3.0
percent, the annual average unemployment rate in 2007, to having more than doubled to
7.0 percent according to the latest October 2009 estimate from California’s
Unemployment Development Department. The total number of people unemployed in
Carlsbad has also increased over the last two years, from less than 1,500 to more than
3,000. And while this year’s survey results are not focused on household economic
health and vitality, it is important to understand some of the key changes that have
occurred in the last few years and their likely impact on public opinion, particularly as we
compare results over time.
Overall Indicators for the City of Carlsbad
Consistent with last year’s survey results, even as the economic environment has
soured, Carlsbad residents continue to express their satisfaction with the City. Three key
general indicators illustrate residents continued overall satisfaction with the City of
Carlsbad. These three key indicators not only received high scores from residents in the
2009 resident survey, but have remained high in comparison to last two year’s results
and are typically higher when compared to results in other cities’ resident surveys.
These indicators include:
• Overall satisfaction with the job the City is doing to provide services –
Approximately nine out of ten residents were satisfied with the City and of those that
were satisfied, over six of ten were “Very satisfied.”
• Perceived quality of life in Carlsbad – Just over 95 percent of residents rated the
quality of life in Carlsbad as either “Excellent” or “Good” and more than six out of
ten perceived the quality of life in the City as “Excellent.”
• High levels of satisfaction with the City services connected to public safety –
At least 90 percent of residents who provided an opinion were satisfied with the job
the City is doing to provide fire protection and emergency medical services and law
enforcement services.
Changes from 2008 Results
The survey results from 2008 to 2009 generally did not change dramatically. However,
there were differences in the 2009 survey results that are worth noting.
The most notable changes in results from 2008 to 2009 include:
• One of the biggest changes over last year’s survey results pertained to water and
the overall level of awareness among Carlsbad residents of Southern
California’s current water supply. Last year’s survey results revealed that less
than 40 percent of residents felt there was a water shortage in the region, whereas
this year’s results indicated that approximately 60 percent of Carlsbad residents
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
9
were aware of the region’s water shortage. That is a jump in awareness of more
than 20 percentage points in the last 12 months.
• Sense of community has been measured in Carlsbad over the last three years,
starting in 2007. Over the last two years, the percentage of residents identified as
having a “High” sense of community declined from 48 percent in 2007 to 38 percent
in 2009. And while the overall percentage of residents categorized as having either
a “High” or “Medium” sense of community has remained relatively flat over the three
years, this proportional decline in “High” sense of community residents is worth
exploring. It is worth pointing out that residents’ satisfaction with the City’s local arts
and cultural opportunities were one of the top predictors of a higher sense of
community in the 2009 survey. Greater awareness and participation at events like
Art Splash and TGIF Jazz among Carlsbad residents would likely increase the
sense of community metric in the future.
• Not surprisingly, economic issues related to jobs, lower taxes, and better
economic planning have jumped considerably as the number one way to improve
the quality of life in Carlsbad (among those residents who felt the quality of life was
declining or were dissatisfied with the job the City is doing to provide services). In
2007, less than one percent of residents mentioned economic issues as a way to
improve the quality of life in Carlsbad. In 2009, that percentage increased to 14
percent. The increased attention on local economic issues is consistent with an
unemployment level that has more than doubled in Carlsbad over this same time
period and state and local budgets that have become increasingly tight.
For additional detail on the research findings and a complete assessment of the survey
results, please proceed to the body of the report beginning on the next page.
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
10
SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES
Residents’ satisfaction with the job Carlsbad is doing to provide city services in 2009
tracked very closely with the levels reported in previous years. Specifically, 89 percent of
residents were satisfied with the job the City of Carlsbad is doing to provide city services
in 2009 compared with 91 percent in 2008 and 92 percent in 2007 (not statistically
different).
More than the majority of residents were “Very satisfied” (56%) and one-third were
“Somewhat satisfied” with the job the City is doing.
Although fewer residents reported being “Very satisfied” in 2009 as compared with
previous years, the change was not statistically significant. The only statistically
significant difference was a slight increase in the percentage “Very dissatisfied” from
2009 to 2008 (4% vs. 2%). However, the overall percentage of residents reporting
dissatisfaction (“Very” plus “Somewhat”) has remained statistically unchanged over time
(2009: 8%; 2008: 6%; 2007: 6%).
Figure 1 Satisfaction with City Services
Very satisfied Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied DK/NA
2009 55.5%33.4%3.5%4.1%3.4%
2008 58.4%32.5%3.5%2.4%3.2%
2007 58.0%33.5%2.9%3.1%2.5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
2009 2008 2007
¥
¥ Statistically significant change: 2009 to 2008 (p< .05) ł Statistically significant: 2009 to 2007 ^ Statistically significant: 2008 to 2007
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
11
Analyses of 2009 survey responses by resident sub-groups will be presented in text
boxes throughout this report. To follow is an examination of residents’ 2009 satisfaction
with the job the City of Carlsbad is doing to provide city services by sub-groups.
• Satisfied residents were more likely to rate other aspects of life in Carlsbad
favorably. Satisfaction was positively correlated with: residents’ views regarding
quality of life; direction of the community; sense of community; feeling safe
walking alone in their neighborhood; confidence in city government; satisfaction
with city-resident communication; and ratings for residents’ experience visiting
Carlsbad’s Downtown Village.
o As residents’ quality of life perception increased so did their reported
satisfaction with the job the City is doing to provide services (“Excellent”
95% satisfied; “Good” 82%; “Fair” 43%).
o As residents’ sense of community increased so did their reported
satisfaction, (“High” 96% satisfied; “Medium” 87%; “Low” 78%).
• A regression analysis revealed the following as the top predictors of satisfaction
with the job the City is doing to provide services:
o Confidence in Carlsbad government to make decisions that positively
affect the lives of residents;
o Ratings for recycling collection services; and
o Satisfaction with the city’s efforts to provide sewer services.
• Residents who regularly watched the Carlsbad City Channel reported lower
satisfaction than those who watched less frequently (“Regularly” 72%;
“Sometimes” 89%; “Seldom” 91%; “Never” 89%).
• Residents who had lived in the City for less than 15 years reported higher
satisfaction with the job the City is doing to provide services than those who lived
in the City for 15 years or more (91% vs. 85%).
• Residents in zip code 92008 reported the lowest satisfaction among the zip
codes (83%), whereas those in 92010 reported the highest (95%).
• Respondents who identified their neighborhood as Aviara reported more
dissatisfaction than residents in other neighborhoods (16% dissatisfied).
• Residents in the 25 to 34 year old age group reported higher than average
dissatisfaction (17% dissatisfied).
• Residents who identified their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino(a) reported higher
than average dissatisfaction (19%).
• No notable differences in satisfaction were found by homeownership status,
children in the household, or gender.
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
12
SATISFACTION: COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES
An average score for satisfaction with the provision of city services is typically in the low
to mid-80 percent range. Figure 2 below shows examples of the range of satisfaction
scores evidenced in cities throughout California that have conducted comparable studies
within the past five years.
With 89 percent satisfaction, Carlsbad remained in the top tier in 2009 (89% is the lower
limit for the top tier).
Figure 2 Satisfaction with City Services: Comparison to Other Cities2
2 Small cities were defined as those with a total population up to 50,000. Mid-sized cities were those with a
population between 50,001 and 150,000. Large cities were those with a population of 150,001 or more.
53%
67%
75%
76%
77%
80%
83%
85%
85%
87%
88%
89%
91%
92%
93%
95%
96%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Small City, Kern County
Mid-Sized City, Los Angeles County
Mid-Sized City, Santa Clara County
Mid-Sized City, Sacramento County
Small City, Riverside County
Large City, Santa Clara County
Small City, Riverside County
Mid-Sized City, San Diego County
Mid-Sized City, San Bernardino County
Mid-Sized City, San Mateo County
Mid-Sized City, San Diego County
City of Carlsbad, San Diego County
Small City, Orange County
Small City, Los Angeles County
Small City, San Diego County
Mid-Sized City, Orange County
Mid-Sized City, Orange County
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
13
QUALITY OF LIFE
When asked to rate the quality of life in Carlsbad, 62 percent of residents rated it as
“Excellent” and 34 percent rated it as “Good.”
Overall, 96 percent of residents provided a positive rating for the quality of life in
Carlsbad in 2009 (statistically unchanged from the 95 percent reported in 2008).
Compared to last year, statistically fewer residents provided a negative quality of life
rating (2009: 0% vs. 2008: 2%).
Figure 3 Quality of Life Rating3
3 Question not asked in 2007.
0.4%
0.4%
1.1%
3.6%
33.5%
61.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
3.6%
33.9%
61.9%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
DK/NA
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
2009
2008
¥ Statistically significant change: 2009 to 2008 (p< .05)
¥
¥
Positive
2009 = 96%
2008 = 95%
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
14
To follow are the highlights from the analysis of quality of life ratings by sub-groups.
• Quality of life ratings were positively correlated with a number of other metrics
throughout the survey, including: satisfaction with city services; satisfaction with
city-resident communication; sense of community; confidence in city government;
perceptions regarding the direction of the community; safety walking alone in
their neighborhood; and their experience visiting Carlsbad’s Downtown Village.
o Ninety-nine percent of residents with a “High” sense of community and 96
percent of those with a “Medium” sense of community rated the quality of
life in Carlsbad as “Excellent” or “Good” (compared with 86% of those with
a “Low” sense of community).
o Ninety-nine percent of residents who felt the quality of life in the City was
“Getting better” rated the quality of life favorably (83% “Excellent”).
o Eighty percent of residents who were “Very confident” in Carlsbad City
government to make decisions that positively affect the lives of community
members rated the quality of life as “Excellent” (99% positive).
• A regression analysis revealed the following as the top predictors of residents’
views on quality of life:
o Satisfaction with the job the City is doing to provide services;
o Experience visiting Carlsbad’s Downtown Village; and
o Agreement with the statement: “If there is a problem in my neighborhood,
people here can get it solved.”
• Residents who had lived in the City for less than 15 years were more likely to
provide “Excellent” or “Good” quality of life ratings than those who had lived in
the City for 15 years or more (98% vs. 94%).
• Residents in the 25 to 34 year age group provided the lowest “Excellent” or
“Good” ratings of all the age groups (91%) and were the most likely to rate the
quality of life as “Fair” (9%).
• Compared with those living in other zip codes, Residents in zip code 92008 were
the most likely to rate the quality of life as “Fair” (91% “Excellent” or “Good”).
• Residents who identified their ethnicity as Caucasian/ White provided higher
quality of life ratings than Hispanic or Latino(a) respondents (97% vs. 91%).
• Although there was no difference in overall positive ratings (“Excellent” plus
“Good”), homeowners were more likely than renters to rate the quality of life in
Carlsbad as “Excellent” (63% vs. 55%).
• No statistically significant differences in overall quality of life ratings (percentage
“Excellent” plus “Good”) were found by homeownership status, presence of
children in the household, or gender.
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
15
PERCEIVED DIRECTION
Residents were next asked whether they thought the quality of life in the City was getting
better, getting worse, or staying about the same.
Six out of ten residents felt the quality of life in Carlsbad was “Staying about the same,”
15 percent viewed it as “Getting better,” and 21 percent viewed it as “Getting worse.”
Compared with previous years, fewer residents in 2009 felt the quality of life was
“Getting better” (2009: 15%; 2008: 21%; 2007: 22%) and more felt it was “Staying about
the same” (significant increase from 2007) or did not know or declined to state
(significant increase from 2008).
The percentage of residents that felt the quality of life was “Getting worse” remained
consistent with the levels reported in 2008, but was statistically lower than the
percentage reported in 2007 (2009: 21%; 2008: 20%; 2007: 27%).
Figure 4 Quality of Life Direction
Getting better Staying about the
same Getting worse DK/NA
2009 15.1%59.8%20.9%4.2%
2008 21.1%56.5%20.0%2.4%
2007 21.5%47.9%26.5%4.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
2009 2008 2007
¥ ł
ł
^ ^ ^
ł ¥
¥ Statistically significant change: 2009 to 2008 (p< .05) ł Statistically significant: 2009 to 2007 ^ Statistically significant: 2008 to 2007
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
16
Below is the assessment of perceived direction of the quality of life by sub-groups.
• A regression analysis revealed the following as the top predictors of residents’
views on the direction of the community:
o Confidence in Carlsbad government to make decisions that positively
affect the lives of residents;
o Satisfaction with the City’s efforts to manage residential growth and
development;
o Satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide law enforcement services.
• The majority of residents who viewed the quality of life in the City as “Fair”
viewed the direction as “Getting worse,” whereas the majority of residents who
viewed the quality of life as “Excellent” or “Good” viewed the direction as “Staying
about the same.”
• Fifty-four percent of residents who felt unsafe walking alone in their
neighborhood after dark rated the quality of life as “Getting worse” (compared
with 18% among those who felt safe).
• As residents’ sense of community increased, so did their positive perceptions
regarding the direction of the quality of life in Carlsbad.
• Residents who were satisfied with the job the City is doing to provide services as
well as those satisfied with city-resident communication were more likely than
those who were dissatisfied to feel that the quality of life in the City was
improving.
• Respondents who indicated that they were “Very confident” in city government to
make decisions that positively affect the lives of residents were the most likely to
view the quality of life as “Getting better” (36%). Fifty-two percent of residents
who indicated a lack of confidence viewed the quality of life as “Getting worse.”
• Negative perceptions regarding the direction of the community were correlated
with length of residence, such that the percentage who felt the quality of life was
“Getting worse” increased with length of residence (Less than 10 years: 12%; 10
to 14 years: 19%; 15 years or more: 34%).
• Residents in zip code 92010 were the most likely to view the quality of life as
“Getting better” (22%) and those in 92011 were the most likely to rate it as
“Staying about the same” (70%).
• Homeowners were more likely than renters to indicate that the quality of life in
Carlsbad was “Getting worse” (23% vs. 16%).
• Residents 55 to 64 years old were the most likely among the age groups to view
the quality of life as “Getting worse” (32%).
• Hispanic or Latino(a) residents were more likely than respondents in other ethnic
groups to feel that the quality of life was “Getting worse” (31%).
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
17
QUALITY OF LIFE: COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES
This section shows examples of resident perspectives regarding the quality of life in
cities that have conducted comparable studies within the past five years. With a 96
percent overall quality of life rating, the score given by Carlsbad residents falls within the
top ten percent among comparable resident research studies.
Figure 5 Quality of Life Rating: Comparison to Other Cities4
4 Small cities were defined as those with a total population up to 50,000. Mid-sized cities were those with a
population between 50,001 and 150,000. Large cities were those with a population of 150,001 or more.
56%
61%
62%
74%
75%
78%
80%
82%
83%
85%
86%
87%
88%
91%
92%
94%
95%
96%
98%
99%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Small City, Sacramento County
Large City, Alameda County
Small City, Riverside County
Small City, El Dorado County
Large City, Riverside County
Large City, San Diego County
Mid-Sized City, Shasta County
Mid-Sized City, Santa Clara County
Small City, Solano County
Large City, Los Angeles County
Mid-Sized City, San Diego County
Small City, Riverside County
Mid-Sized City, Orange County
Mid-Sized City, Santa Clara County
Small City, Santa Cruz County
Small City, San Diego County
Small City, Orange County
City of Carlsbad, San Diego County
Small City, Los Angeles County
Mid-Sized City, Orange County
% of Residents that Rate the Quality of Life in their City as “Excellent” or “Good”
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
18
Figure 6 displays the percentage of residents that viewed the quality of life in their City
as either “Getting better” or “Staying about the same” from comparable research studies
throughout California that were conducted within the past five years. Carlsbad remained
in the middle tier for this metric in 2009.
Figure 6 Quality of Life Direction: Comparison to Other Cities5
5 Small cities were defined as those with a total population up to 50,000. Mid-sized cities were those with a
population between 50,001 and 150,000. Large cities were those with a population of 150,001 or more.
47%
56%
64%
66%
69%
73%
74%
75%
76%
80%
80%
83%
84%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Mid-Sized City, Riverside County
Large City, Kern County
Large City, Marin County
Large City, Riverside County
Small City, Riverside County
Small City, Los Angeles County
Large City, San Bernardino County
City of Carlsbad, San Diego County
Large City, Sacramento County
Large City, Santa Clara County
Small-Sized City, San Diego County
Mid-Sized City, Sacramento County
Small City, Alameda County
% of Residents that View the Quality of Life in their City as
“Getting better” or “Staying about the same”
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
19
NUMBER ONE WAY TO INCREASE QUALITY OF LIFE
As a follow-up question, the 21 percent of residents (209 respondents) who either felt
that the quality of life in the City was getting worse or who were dissatisfied with the job
the City is doing to provide services were asked to report the number one thing that the
City could do to improve the quality of life within the community.
As in previous years, the most frequently cited response among the 209 respondents
was to stop building and growth (37%) to increase the quality of life followed by “Fix the
traffic problems” (12%).
Figure 7 Number One Way to Increase Quality of Life (n=209)
6.6%
3.8%
0.4%
0.7%
0.7%
1.4%
2.4%
2.5%
2.8%
2.9%
2.9%
3.7%
6.3%
6.4%
7.8%
12.0%
36.7%
0%20%40%60%
DK/NA
Other
Nothing needs improvement
Build Desalination Plant
Improve beach access
Limit airport growth/ reduce noise
Remove the illegal immigrants
Improve quality of roads and other
infrastructure
Preserve more open space
Improve schools
Need new Mayor and/ or City Council
Increase recreation opportunities
Increase/ improve police services
Better economic plan/ don't waste money/
lower taxes
More jobs
Fix the traffic problems
Stop building/ stop growth
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
20
Although still cited by 37 percent of those who felt the quality of life was getting worse,
the percentage who indicated that the City should halt building and growth decreased
significantly from previous years (2009: 37%; 2008: 48%; 2007: 52%).
In 2009, residents were much more likely to cite an economic-related response such as
the need for a “Better economic plan/ don’t waste money/ lower taxes” or “More jobs”
(2009: 14%; 2008: 4%; 2007: 0%). Residents in 2009 were also more likely than in
previous years to decline to state or not know how to improve the quality of life.
Table 1 Number One Way to Increase Quality of Life
Number one thing that Carlsbad
could do to improve quality of life 2009 2008 2007
Base 209 202 290
Stop building/ stop growth 36.7% ¥ ł 47.7% 51.7%
Fix the traffic problems 12.0% 12.2% 11.3%
More jobs 7.8% ¥ ł 1.8% ^ 0.0%
Better economic plan/ don't waste
money/ lower taxes 6.4% ¥ ł 2.3% ^ 0.0%
Increase/ improve police services 6.3% 4.3% 4.4%
Increase recreation opportunities 3.7% 1.2% 2.2%
Improve schools 2.9% 5.7% 2.6%
Need new Mayor and/ or City Council 2.9% 1.2% 1.7%
Preserve more open space 2.8% 2.6% 3.5%
Improve the quality of the roads and
other infrastructure 2.5% 2.1% ^ 5.7%
Remove the illegal immigrants 2.4% 1.6% 2.8%
Limit airport growth/ reduce noise 1.4% ł 1.3% ^ 0.0%
Build Desalination Plant 0.7% 2.1% 1.1%
Nothing needs improvement 0.4% 0.7% 0.6%
More public transportation 0.0% ¥ 2.6% 1.8%
Other 4.5% 8.1% 9.0%
DK/NA 6.6% ł 2.6% 1.6%
• Residents who were either dissatisfied or felt the quality of life was getting worse
and who had lived in Carlsbad for 10 years or more were the most likely to feel
that the City should stop building and growth. Comparatively, those who had lived
in the City one to four years were the most likely to provide an economic-related
response (i.e., more jobs, better economic plan, don’t waste money, lower taxes).
• Residents with a “High” or “Medium” sense of community were the most likely to
feel that the City should stop building and growth as a way to improve the quality
of life, whereas those with a “Low” sense of community were more likely to cite an
economic-related response.
¥ Statistically significant change: 2009 to 2008 (p< .05) ł Statistically significant: 2009 to 2007 ^ Statistically significant: 2008 to 2007
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
21
SENSE OF COMMUNITY
To assess sense of community among residents, a seven-question series known as the
“Brief Sense of Community Index6
Table 2
” was utilized. The series assessed the three
underlying dimensions of sense of community: “Social connections,” “Mutual concerns,”
and “Community values.” displays the questions used to measure sense of
community among Carlsbad residents, with the total level of agreement with each
statement shown in the last column on the right (disagreement for reverse-coded items).
Carlsbad residents reported the highest level of agreement with items related to “Mutual
concerns” and “Community values” (72% average across items), but also believed it was
important to have strong “Social connections” in their community (60% average).
Table 2 Sense of Community Index7
Strongly
agree Agree Total
Agree Average
Social Connections
I can recognize most of the
people who live in my
neighborhood
26.2% 47.8% 74.0%
60.2% Very few of my neighbors know
me 10.1% 27.7% 57.8%*
I have almost no influence over
what my neighborhood is like 12.4% 29.7% 48.8%*
Mutual Concerns
My neighbors and I want the
same things from this community 27.5% 47.1% 74.6%
72.4% If there is a problem in my
neighborhood, people who live
here can get it solved
20.5% 49.7% 70.2%
Community Values
It is very important for me to feel a
sense of community with other
residents
30.6% 48.4% 79.0%
72.0% Very
strong
Some-
what
strong
Total
Strong
How strongly feel sense of
community 26.3% 38.6% 64.9%
* Items reverse coded. Percentage shown is total disagreement. Disagreeing with these
statements indicated a higher sense of community.
6 Long, D.A. and Perkins, D.D (2003), “Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Sense of Community Index and
Development of a Brief SCI.” Journal of Community Psychology 33(3): Pages 279 - 296.
7 A factor analysis was performed to confirm that the items were measuring one underlying dimension.
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
22
Figure 8 shows residents’ level of agreement across the seven-question series in 2009,
2008, and 2007 (after adjusting for reverse-coded items).
In 2009, residents were less likely to agree with seven or six items (indicating a high
sense of community) as compared with 2007 and were more likely to agree with four or
three (medium sense of community). Please proceed to the next page for more
information on the sense of community levels.
Figure 8 Level of Agreement with Items
1.1%
3.9%
7.0%
8.3%
13.7%
18.1%
23.0%
24.9%
0.8%
4.9%
7.0%
10.1%
15.1%
21.2%
21.3%
19.6%
1.5%
4.7%
7.1%
11.7%
18.4%
18.1%
18.0%
20.4%
0%20%40%
0 of 7
1 of 7
2 of 7
3 of 7
4 of 7
5 of 7
6 of 7
7 of 7
2009
2008
2007
ł
^
ł
ł
¥ ł
¥ Statistically significant change: 2009 to 2008 (p< .05) ł Statistically significant: 2009 to 2007 ^ Statistically significant: 2008 to 2007
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
23
Thirty-eight percent of residents in 2009 agreed with at least six of the seven items and
were classified as having a “High” sense of community and 48 percent agreed with
between three and five items and were labeled in the “Medium” category. Thirteen
percent of respondents agreed with zero, one, or two of the questions and were
classified as having a “Low” sense of community.
Compared with 2007, more residents in both 2008 and 2009 were classified as having a
“Medium” sense of community (2009: 48%; 2008: 46%; 2007: 40%) and less as having a
“High” sense of community (2009: 38%; 2008: 41%; 2007: 48%). The percentage of
residents classified as having a “High” sense of community was ten percentage points
lower in 2009 as compared with 2007 (38% vs. 48%).
These differences were driven by statistically significant changes in three of the
individual items in the “Brief Sense of Community Index.”
Fewer residents in 2009 disagreed with the items “I have almost no influence over what
my neighborhood is like” (2009: 49%; 2008: 53%; 2007: 58%) and “Very few of my
neighbors know me” (2009: 58%; 2008: 63%; 2007: 67%). Fewer also indicated a strong
sense of community when directly asked (2009: 65%; 2008: 71%; 2007: 70%).
There was, however, an increase from 2008 to 2009 in the number of residents who
agreed that “My neighbors and I want the same things from this community,” bringing the
2009 percentage back in line with 2007 (2009: 75%; 2008: 67%; 2007: 77%).
Taken together, these changes result in a lower sense of community in 2009 as
compared with 2007 (after adjusting for reverse coding of the first two items) and explain
the shift from “High” to “Medium.”
Figure 9 Sense of Community Index Levels
47.9%
40.9%
38.4%
40.0%
46.4%
48.3%
12.0%
12.7%
13.3%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2007
2008
2009
High Medium Low
^
^
ł
ł
¥ Statistically significant change: 2009 to 2008 (p< .05) ł Statistically significant: 2009 to 2007 ^ Statistically significant: 2008 to 2007
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
24
Below is an analysis of 2009 sense of community levels by resident sub-groups.
• Sense of community was positively correlated with a number of factors
throughout the survey, including satisfaction with the job the City is doing to
provide services; satisfaction with city-resident communication; safety walking
alone in their neighborhood; quality of life ratings; perceptions regarding the
direction of the community confidence in city government; and experience visiting
the Village.
• A regression analysis revealed the following as the top predictors of residents’
sense of community:
o Satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide local arts and cultural
opportunities;
o Satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide law enforcement services;
o Feeling safe walking alone in their neighborhood after dark.
• Residents who had lived in the City for five years or more had a higher sense of
community than those who had lived in Carlsbad less than five years (“High”
44% vs. 25%).
• Residents who had heard about water pollution prevention in the past year had a
higher sense of community than those who had not heard about ways to prevent
the pollution of local creeks, lagoons, and the ocean (“High” 43% vs. 26%).
• Homeowners had a higher sense of community than renters (“High” 42% vs.
23%).
• Residents with children in their home had a higher sense of community than
those without children.
• Residents 18 to 24 and 35 to 54 years of age were the most likely to place in the
high sense of community group, residents 25 to 34 years of age were the most
likely to be in the “Medium” group, and those 55 to 64 were the most likely to fall
in the “Low” group.
• Caucasian/ White respondents had a higher sense of community than residents
in other ethnic groups (“High” 43%).
• Residents in zip codes 92008 and 92009 were twice as likely to be in the “Low”
sense of community group than those in zips 92010 and 92011 (92008: 17%;
92009: 17%; 92010: 6%; 92011: 9%).
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
25
SENSE OF COMMUNITY: COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES
Figure 10 below shows the percentage of residents in comparable research projects that
reported feeling a “Strong” sense of community8
Figure 10 Sense of Community: Comparison to Other Cities
living in their City. Carlsbad residents
placed in the middle tier with regard to sense of community in 2009.
9
8 Question 7 of the survey: “Would you say that you feel a strong sense of community, a weak sense of
community, or no sense of community at all?”
9 Small cities were defined as those with a total population up to 50,000. Mid-sized cities were those with a
population between 50,001 and 150,000. Large cities were those with a population of 150,001 or more.
50%
50%
52%
58%
59%
61%
65%
66%
68%
80%
85%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Small City, Riverside County
Small City, El Dorado County
Mid-Sized City, Sacramento County
Mid-Sized City, Santa Clara County
Mid-Sized City, San Mateo County
Mid-Sized City, Santa Clara County
City of Carlsbad, San Diego County
Small City, San Mateo County
Mid-Sized City, Santa Clara County
Small City, San Diego County
Mid-Sized City, Los Angeles County
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
26
SAFETY
Overwhelmingly, 97 percent of residents felt safe walking alone in their neighborhood
during the day (with 86% reporting they felt “Very safe”) and 85 percent of residents felt
safe walking alone after dark (52% “Very safe”). Only two percent of residents reported
feeling unsafe walking alone in their neighborhood during the day and ten percent felt
unsafe after dark.
The percentages of residents that felt safe in 2009 were statistically consistent with the
percentages reported in 2007. The only statistically significant difference was in the
percentage of residents who declined to state or were not sure how safe they felt
(“During the day”: 1% vs. 0% and “After dark”: 5% vs. 3%).
Figure 11 Safety in Carlsbad10
10 Question not asked in 2008.
2009 2007 2009 2007
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
85.5%85.9%
52.3%51.4%
11.4%12.4%
33.0%34.1%
8.3%9.2%
5.2%3.3%
Very safe Somewhat safe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe DK/NA
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
Walking alone in neighborhood
during the day
Walking alone in neighborhood
after dark
ł Statistically significant: 2009 to 2007 (p< .05)
ł ł
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
27
Given the very high percentage of residents that felt safe walking alone in their
neighborhood during the day (and thereby the limited amount of differentiation
among sub-groups), the focus of the sub-group analysis to follow is on safety
walking alone after dark.
• Residents with a high sense of community (derived across seven variables) were
more likely to report feeling safe walking alone in their neighborhood after dark
than those with a medium or low sense of community (“High” 93% safe;
“Medium” 83%; “Low” 73%).
• Residents who reported dissatisfaction with the job the City is doing to provide
services, those who were very dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate
with residents, those who felt the quality of life in Carlsbad was “Getting worse,”
and residents who were not confident in city government to make decisions that
positively affect the lives of residents were more likely to report feeling unsafe
than their sub-group counterparts.
Demographically;
• Respondents who had lived in Carlsbad for less than five years were more likely
than those who had lived in the City longer to report feeling unsafe walking alone
in their neighborhood after dark (“Less than 5 years”: 14%; “5 years or more”:
8%).
• Homeowners reported a higher perception of safety walking alone in their
neighborhood after dark as compared to renters who were more likely to report
feeling unsafe (14% vs. 8%).
• Residents with three or more children reported feeling safer walking alone in their
neighborhood after dark than those with fewer or no children.
• Residents in the 35 to 54 year age group reported the highest feelings of safety
among the age groups.
• Female residents were twice more likely to report feeling unsafe walking alone in
their neighborhood after dark as compared to male residents (13% vs. 6%).
• Residents in 92011 reported higher feelings of safety than residents in the other
zip codes (92008: 13% felt unsafe; 92009: 12%; 92010: 8%; 92011: 4%).
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
28
SAFETY: COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES
As discussed in the previous section, Carlsbad residents felt safe walking alone in their
neighborhoods during both the day and night.
Walking Alone in their Neighborhood During the Day
Figure 12 shows examples of residents’ feelings of safety walking alone in their
neighborhood during the day in cities throughout California that have conducted
comparable studies within the past five years. Carlsbad is in the top tier with regard to
this metric.
Figure 12 Safety Walking Alone During the Day: Comparison to Other Cities11
11 Small cities were defined as those with a total population up to 50,000. Mid-sized cities were those with a
population between 50,001 and 150,000. Large cities were those with a population of 150,001 or more.
81%
83%
85%
86%
90%
93%
95%
97%
98%
99%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Small City, Riverside County
Large City, San Francisco County
Mid-Sized City, Sacramento County
Mid-Sized City, Riverside County
Mid-Sized City, San Bernardino County
Mid-Sized City, Los Angeles County
Mid-Sized City, Santa Clara County
City of Carlsbad, San Diego County
Small City, Riverside County
Small City, Orange County
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
29
Walking Alone in their Neighborhood After Dark
As is always the case with this type of question, residents reported lower safety ratings
for walking alone in their neighborhood after dark as compared to during the day.
With 85 percent of residents reporting they felt safe walking alone in their neighborhood
after dark, Carlsbad placed within the top tier among comparable resident research
projects.
Figure 13 Safety Walking Alone After Dark: Comparison to Other Cities12
12 Small cities were defined as those with a total population up to 50,000. Mid-sized cities were those with a
population between 50,001 and 150,000. Large cities were those with a population of 150,001 or more.
50%
52%
55%
61%
66%
68%
78%
83%
85%
86%
88%
89%
91%
92%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Large City, San Francisco County
Mid-Sized City, Riverside County
Mid-Sized City, Sacramento County
Mid-Sized City, Sacramento County
Mid-Sized City, San Bernardino County
Mid-Sized City, Los Angeles County
Mid-Sized City, Santa Clara County
Small City, San Mateo County
City of Carlsbad, San Diego County
Small City, El Dorado County
Small City, Riverside County
Large City, Orange County
Small City, Orange County
Mid-Sized City, Orange County
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
30
CONFIDENCE IN CITY GOVERNMENT
Seventy-four percent of residents indicated confidence in Carlsbad city government to
make decisions that positively affect the lives of its community members. Of those, 22
percent indicated they were “Very confident” and 52 percent were “Somewhat confident.”
Figure 14 Confidence in City Government to Make Decisions
Confidence in city government has declined each year, with a statistically significant
decrease evidenced from 2007 to 2009 (2009: 74%; 2008: 76%; 2007: 79%).
Table 3 Confidence in City Government to Make Decisions
Confidence in Carlsbad
government to make
decisions which positively
affect the lives of residents
2009 2008 2007
Base 1,000 1,000 1,001
Very confident 21.6% 23.6% 23.1%
Somewhat confident 52.2% 52.1% 55.4%
Total confident 73.8% ł 75.7% 78.5%
Somewhat unconfident 15.7% 12.9% 12.7%
Very unconfident 6.5% 7.5% 5.4%
DK/NA 4.0% 3.9% 3.4%
Very confident
21.6%
Somewhat
confident
52.2%Somewhat
unconfident
15.7%
Very
unconfident
6.5%
DK/NA
4.0%
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
¥ Statistically significant change: 2009 to 2008 (p< .05) ł Statistically significant: 2009 to 2007 ^ Statistically significant: 2008 to 2007
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
31
To follow is an analysis of residents’ 2009 confidence in Carlsbad government by
sub-groups.
• In general, residents who were confident in Carlsbad City government were more
likely to rate other aspects of life in Carlsbad favorably. Confidence was
positively correlated with: residents’ views regarding quality of life; direction of
the community; sense of community; safety walking alone in their neighborhood;
satisfaction with city services; satisfaction with city-resident communication; and
residents’ experience visiting Carlsbad’s Downtown Village.
• A regression analysis revealed the following as the top predictors of residents’
confidence in Carlsbad government:
o Satisfaction with the job the City of Carlsbad is doing to provide city
services;
o Perceptions regarding the direction of the quality of life in Carlsbad; and
o Satisfaction with city-resident communication.
• Residents with a “High” sense of community (83%) were more likely than those
with a “Medium” (74%) or “Low” (49%) sense of community to indicate
confidence in city government.
• Residents with no children in the home indicated a higher level of confidence in
city government than those with children (77% vs. 70%).
• Respondents who had lived in Carlsbad less than one year reported higher
confidence levels than those who had lived in the City longer (84% vs. 74%).
• Among the age groups, confidence was lowest among those 18 to 24 (61%) and
highest among those 65 and older or 25 to 34 (83% and 82%, respectively).
• Asian and Caucasian respondents reported higher levels of confidence (86% and
78%) than Hispanic/ Latino(a) respondents (62%) and those identifying
themselves as “Other” (57%).
• Female respondents reported more confidence in city government than male
respondents (77% vs. 70%).
• Confidence was higher among residents in zip code 92011 compared to the
other three zip codes.
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
32
SATISFACTION WITH SPECIFIC CITY SERVICES
Similar to the 2008 and 2007 surveys, over 90 percent of residents who provided an
opinion13
Figure 15 Satisfaction with Local Issues and Services
were satisfied with the City’s efforts to “Provide library services” (97%
satisfaction), “Maintain city parks” (94%), “Provide fire protection and prevention
services” (94%), “Provide sewer services” (91%), and “Provide law enforcement
services” (90%).
13 Due to the higher than average percentage of “Don’t know/ No answer” responses to many items, those
responses have been filtered out of the analysis for this series. The high percentage of “Don’t know/ No
answer” is likely due to residents’ lack of direct experience with those specific services.
22.5%
32.8%
35.9%
41.8%
40.3%
47.6%
50.0%
53.0%
59.0%
56.0%
64.1%
60.8%
74.2%
65.4%
77.4%
41.2%
36.7%
35.0%
40.5%
43.4%
39.0%
36.7%
34.8%
29.1%
32.8%
25.9%
30.0%
19.9%
29.0%
19.3%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Manage residential growth and
development
Manage traffic congestion on city streets
Provide enough undeveloped areas in the
City for habitat protection
Protect water quality in the City's creeks,
lagoons, and the ocean
Maintain the business climate in Carlsbad
Repair and maintain local streets and
roads
Provide local arts and cultural
opportunities
Provide trails and walking paths
Provide recreation programs
Provide water services
Provide law enforcement services
Provide sewer services
Provide fire protection and emergency
medical services
Maintain city parks
Provide library services
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
33
The table below shows the overall percentage of residents that were satisfied, neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied, or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts in each area.
Table 4 Satisfaction with Local Issues and Services
Satisfaction with the City's efforts to… Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Satisfaction
Rank
Provide library services 96.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1
Maintain city parks 94.4% 1.8% 3.8% 2
Provide fire protection and emergency
medical services 94.1% 2.8% 3.1% 3
Provide sewer services 90.8% 3.9% 5.2% 4
Provide law enforcement services 90.0% 1.5% 8.5% 5
Provide water services 88.8% 3.1% 8.1% 6
Provide recreation programs 88.1% 6.2% 5.8% 7
Provide trails and walking paths 87.8% 4.6% 7.7% 8
Provide local arts and cultural opportunities 86.7% 6.5% 6.8% 9
Repair and maintain local streets and roads 86.6% 1.6% 11.8% 10
Maintain the business climate in Carlsbad 83.7% 6.6% 9.7% 11
Protect water quality in the City's creeks,
lagoons, and the ocean 82.3% 5.7% 11.9% 12
Provide enough undeveloped areas in the
City for habitat protection 70.9% 7.5% 21.6% 13
Manage traffic congestion on city streets 69.5% 3.4% 27.1% 14
Manage residential growth and development 63.7% 4.4% 31.9% 15
Average across items 85.0% 4.1% 11.0%
A number of positive improvements in overall satisfaction (i.e., percentage “Very” plus
“Somewhat” satisfied) were evidenced in 2009. From 2008 to 200914
Although statistically unchanged from 2008 to 2009, residents’ reported statistically
higher satisfaction from 2007 to 2009 with the City’s efforts to “Manage traffic congestion
on city streets” (70% vs. 64%) and “Manage residential growth and development” (64%
vs. 57%).
, a statistically
higher percentage of residents were satisfied with the City’s efforts to “Protect water
quality in the City's creeks, lagoons, and the ocean” (82% vs. 76%) and “Provide enough
undeveloped areas in the City for habitat protection” (71% vs. 67%).
The only service to show a decline was residents’ satisfaction with the City’s efforts to
“Provide water services” (2009: 89% vs. 2007: 93%).
14 Items not asked in 2007.
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
34
RATINGS FOR CONTRACTED CITY SERVICES
Evaluating the City’s contracted services, residents with an opinion provided the most
positive ratings to “Trash collection services” (89% “Excellent” or “Good”), followed by
“Recycling collection services (80% “Excellent” or “Good”), “Street sweeping services”
(75%), and “Hazardous waste disposal” (66%).
Figure 16 Ratings for Contracted City Services15
None of the items showed a statistically significant change in overall positive, neutral, or
negative ratings from 2007 to 200916
. The only changes were a couple shifts in the
intensity of positive ratings from 2007 to 2009 (i.e., percentage “Excellent” or “Good”) for
“Street sweeping services” (increase in “Good” ratings: 51% vs. 46%) and “Hazardous
waste disposal” (decrease in “Excellent” ratings: 22% vs. 29%).
15 Due to space constraints, the labels for categories with four percent or less are not shown on the figure. Due to the higher than average percentage of “Don’t know/ No answer” responses for many items, those
responses have been filtered out of the analysis for this series. The high percentage of “Don’t know/ No
answer” is likely due to residents’ lack of direct experience with the specific services.
16 Question series not asked in 2008.
21.7%
24.2%
38.0%
40.7%
44.6%
51.1%
41.6%
48.1%
19.5%
16.2%
12%
7%
10%
6%
7%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Hazardous waste disposal
Street sweeping services
Recycling collection services
Trash collection services
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
35
CARLSBAD LIBRARY PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
Residents reported strong awareness for many of the library’s programs and services.
Eighty-eight percent of residents were aware that the library offered computers with
Internet access, 68 percent were aware of cultural events at the library, and 65 percent
were aware of its reading and other literacy skills improvement programs.
There was a relatively low level of awareness for home access to online magazines and
other online subscription sources (31%) as well as book delivery to residents physically
limited from leaving their homes (21%).
Figure 17 Awareness of Library Programs and Services
20.6%
30.7%
64.9%
68.3%
88.2%
77.5%
66.9%
33.0%
30.0%
10%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Book delivery to residents that are
physically limited from leaving their
homes
Access at home to online magazines and
other online subscription sources
Improving the reading and other literacy
skills of children and adults of all ages
and reading levels
Cultural events at the library such as
concerts and author presentations
Access at the library to computers with
Internet access
Aware Not aware DK/NA
• With the exception of book delivery, newer residents (less than five years) were
less aware of each of the library’s services.
• Homeowners were more aware of the library’s cultural events than renters.
• Residents without children in the home as well as those 65 years and older were
the most aware of the library’s book delivery program.
• Women had higher awareness of each program and service than men.
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
36
SATISFACTION WITH CITY-RESIDENT COMMUNICATION
Seventy-nine percent of residents were either “Very” (29%) or “Somewhat” (50%)
satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents. Sixteen percent reported
dissatisfaction and five percent did not know or declined to state an opinion.
Figure 18 Satisfaction with City-Resident Communication17
17 The wording for this question was changed in 2009. As such, it was not compared with previous years.
Very satisfied
29.3%
Somewhat
satisfied
49.5%
Somewhat
dissatisfied
11.1%
Very
dissatisfied
5.0%
DK/NA
5.1%
• Satisfaction with city-resident communication was positively correlated with a
number of other variables throughout the survey, including: residents’ views on
quality of life; perceptions regarding the direction of the community; sense of
community; safety walking alone in their neighborhood; satisfaction with the
City’s efforts to provide services; confidence in city government; and their
experience visiting the Village.
• A regression analysis revealed the following as the top predictors of residents’
satisfaction with city-resident communication:
o Confidence in Carlsbad government to make decisions that positively
affect the lives of residents;
o Satisfaction with the City’s efforts to maintain the business climate in
Carlsbad; and
o Sense of community.
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
37
To follow is the examination of 2009 satisfaction with city-resident communication by
sub-groups continued.
• Residents who “Regularly” or “Sometimes” referred to the City’s website or flyers
at city buildings for city information reported higher satisfaction than those who
never utilized those sources.
• Residents who watched the Carlsbad City Channel reported more satisfaction
with city-resident communication than residents who had access to the channel
but never watched (86% vs. 72%).
• Residents who recalled being exposed to information regarding ways to prevent
the pollution of local creeks, lagoons, and the ocean reported higher satisfaction
than those who did not recall hearing or seeing any information.
• Residents of zip 92011 reported more satisfaction than residents in other zips.
• Men were more dissatisfied with city-resident communication than women.
• Hispanic/ Latino(a) residents reported higher dissatisfaction than residents in
other ethnic groups.
• No statistically significant differences in overall satisfaction with city-resident
communication were found by length of residence, homeownership status, or
presence of children in the household.
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
38
INFORMATION SOURCES
Residents were next asked how often they referred to a variety of sources for
information about city issues, services, or activities. Television news (35% regular use),
the community services or recreation guide (32%), the San Diego Union Tribune (29%),
North County Times (28%), and water bill flyers (25%) were each “Regularly” utilized by
at least 25 percent of residents.
Figure 19 Frequency of Using Information Sources18
18 Figure sorted by the percentage that “Regularly” use each source.
14%
17%
17.7%
25.5%
27.5%
29.2%
31.8%
35.3%
27.4%
8%
28.0%
22.9%
19.1%
21.9%
29.2%
22.1%
24.5%
11%
20.7%
15.8%
14%
15.7%
17.8%
19.4%
32.2%
64.1%
33.1%
29.8%
38.7%
32.8%
20.4%
22.3%
6%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Flyers at city buildings like the Library,
Senior Center, or community centers
Social media websites such as Facebook,
Twitter or YouTube
The City of Carlsbad web site
Flyers that come in your water bill
The North County Times or
www.nctimes.com
The San Diego Union-Tribune or
www.signonsandiego.com
The community services or recreation
guide
Television news
Regularly Sometimes Seldom Never DK/NA
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
39
In terms of overall use, the community services or recreation guide (79%) and television
news (77%) were each utilized by close to eight out of ten residents. Social media
websites such as Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube was the least frequently utilized source
for city information (35%).
Figure 20 Overall Use of Information Sources
35.2%
60.4%
64.2%
66.3%
66.4%
66.8%
76.8%
78.8%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Social media websites such as Facebook,
Twitter or YouTube
The North County Times or
www.nctimes.com
Flyers that come in your water bill
Flyers at city buildings like the Library,
Senior Center, or community centers
The City of Carlsbad web site
The San Diego Union-Tribune or
www.signonsandiego.com
Television news
The community services or recreation
guide
• Residents without children were more likely to refer to television news, whereas
those with children were more likely to refer to the City of Carlsbad’s website
when looking for information about city issues, services, or activities.
• When compared with renters, a higher percentage of homeowners utilized the
San Diego Union Tribune and water bill flyers for city information.
• Residents 18 to 24 years old were the most likely to refer to social media web
sites (74%).
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
40
CARLSBAD CITY CHANNEL
Fifty-nine percent of Carlsbad residents subscribed to Time Warner television service at
their home. Among those with Time Warner, 48 percent watched the Carlsbad City
Channel on channel 24 or 126. Five percent watched regularly, 13 percent sometimes,
31 seldom, and the majority never watched (52%).
Overall, 29 percent of all residents watch the Carlsbad City Channel.
Figure 21 Frequency Watching Carlsbad City Channel (n=589)
Most watched the channel to get information on the City and community events.
Figure 22 Primary Reason Watch Carlsbad City Channel (n=285)
Regularly
4.6%Sometimes
13.0%
Seldom
30.7%
Never
51.7%
5.5%
0.6%
0.5%
1.2%
1.4%
7.3%
16.3%
19.8%
47.3%
0%20%40%60%
DK/NA
Other
Local sports
Arts and music
School issues
Certain issues that interest me
Nothing else on/ channel surfing
Watch City Council Meetings
Get information on City/ community
events
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
41
REGION’S WATER SUPPLY
When asked how they would characterize the region’s current water supply, 59 percent
felt it was in shortage (24% severe; 35% shortage but less than severe), 29 percent
thought there was an adequate supply, and two percent thought the region was in a
surplus water period,. Ten percent of residents did not know or declined to comment on
the state of the region’s current water supply.
Compared with 2008, Carlsbad residents were much more likely to have an opinion
about the water supply in 2009. A statistically higher percentage indicated that the region
was experiencing a water shortage, with fewer residents rating the water supply as
adequate.
Figure 23 Perception of Region’s Water Supply
24.4%
34.7%
28.9%
2.0%
10.0%12.0%
25.3%
43.3%
1.3%
18.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Severe water
shortage
Water shortage
but less than
severe
Adequate water
supply
Surplus water
period
DK/NA
2009 2008
¥ Statistically significant change: 2009 to 2008 (p< .05)
¥
¥
¥
¥
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
42
To follow is an assessment of perceptions regarding the region’s water supply by
resident sub-groups.
• Residents who recalled being exposed to information about water pollution
prevention over the past year were more likely to indicate that that region was in
a water shortage those who had not been exposed to the information.
• Homeowners were more likely than renters to indicate that the region was in a
severe water shortage.
• Residents in zip code 92008 were more likely than those in other zip codes to
rate the water supply as adequate.
• Residents in the “High” sense of community group were more likely to indicate
that the region was experiencing a water shortage than those in the “Medium” or
“Low” sense of community groups.
• Compared with other ethnicities, Caucasian/ White residents were the most likely
to indicate that the region was experiencing a water shortage.
• The following sub-groups were the most likely to indicate that they did not know
the state of the region’s water supply:
o Residents who had not heard or seen anything about preventing water
pollution;
o Residents who had only lived in Carlsbad for less than one year;
o Renters;
o Residents with one or two children in the household;
o Residents 18 to 24 years of age;
o Women; and
o Residents who identified themselves as Hispanic/ Latino(a).
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
43
PREVENTING POLLUTION OF CREEKS, LAGOONS, AND OCEAN
Nearly three out of four residents (74%) had seen or heard information in the past year
about how residents can prevent the pollution of local creeks, lagoons, and the ocean.
The percentage of residents that had heard information in the past year about preventing
pollution of local creeks, lagoon, and the ocean increased substantially over previous
years (2009: 74%; 2008: 57%; 2007; 60%).
Figure 24 Informed about Preventing Water Pollution
2.3%
38.0%
59.7%
3.2%
39.5%
57.3%
1.3%
24.4%
74.3%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
DK/NA
No
Yes
2009
2008
2007
The following sub-groups were the most likely to recall hearing or seeing information
about preventing water pollution:
o Residents with a “High” sense of
community;
o Residents who had lived in the City for at
least five years;
o Those without children in the household;
o Residents in zip code 92011;
o Residents who watched the
Carlsbad City Channel;
o Homeowners;
o Residents 35 years and older;
o Female residents.
¥ ł
¥ ł
¥
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
¥ Statistically significant change: 2009 to 2008 (p< .05) ł Statistically significant: 2009 to 2007 ^ Statistically significant: 2008 to 2007
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
44
SOURCE OF INFORMATION
Residents who recalled seeing or hearing water pollution prevention information were
next asked to recall the source of the information in an open-ended format. The most
frequently cited sources of information were television (38%) and the newspaper (28%).
Figure 25 Source of Pollution Prevention Information (n=743)19
Compared with the 2008 results, a statistically higher percentage of residents in the
2009 survey cited brochures (16% vs. 10%), their water or utility bill (12% vs. 7%), word
of mouth (5% vs. 2%), information in the mail (4% vs. 1%), flyers (3% vs. 1%), and signs
near lagoons, the beach, or trails (2% vs. 1%).
19 Multiple responses permitted; the percentages in the figure total more than 100 percent. Responses cited
by less than 1% of respondents were combined into “Other.”
5.3%
1.4%
1.4%
2.1%
2.1%
2.3%
3.4%
3.7%
4.0%
5.4%
7.0%
10.4%
10.7%
11.6%
11.9%
15.6%
28.0%
37.6%
0%20%40%60%
Don't know/ not sure
Other
City building or library
School
Signs near lagoons/ beach/ trails
Public events/ booth
Flyer
Information in the mail
Posters
Family/ friends/ other word of mouth
Website
Curb signs
Newsletters
Water/ utility bill
Radio
Brochures
Newspaper
Television
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
45
ACTION TAKEN BASED ON INFORMATION
Residents who recalled seeing or hearing information about how to prevent water
pollution were next asked to indicate what they had done, if anything, to reduce the
amount of pollution in local creeks, lagoons, and the ocean.
Nineteen percent of residents who had been exposed to information indicated that they
had not done anything or declined to state. Twenty-eight percent of those who recalled
hearing or seeing pollution prevention information properly disposed of hazardous
waste, 19 percent used a commercial car wash, 12 percent used environmentally
friendly products, and 11 percent cleaned up trash at parks and beaches.
Figure 26 Action Taken Based on Pollution Prevention Information (n=743)20
20 Multiple responses permitted; the percentages in the figure total more than 100 percent. Responses cited
by less than 1% of respondents were combined into “Other.”
2.2%
16.9%
2.9%
1.4%
1.6%
4.0%
4.2%
4.2%
4.9%
6.1%
9.4%
9.4%
10.7%
12.1%
18.7%
27.8%
0%20%40%60%
DK/NA
Have not done anything
Other
Don't wash cars as much/ don't wash in
driveway
Taught others/ reported violators
Careful of what goes down sewer drain/
don't dump down storm drain anymore
Cleaned up animal waste
Reduced run-off/ erosion control
Stopped washing driveway
I do everything I can/ don't pollute or
litter
Recycled
Reduced water usage/ used more
efficiently
Cleaned up trash at parks and beaches
Used environmentally friendly soaps,
pesticides, etc.
Used a commercial car wash
Properly disposed of hazardous waste
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
46
Compared with the 2008 and 2007 results, residents in 2009 were more likely to indicate
that they had taken action to prevent water pollution.
A statistically higher percentage of residents in 2009 recycled, reduced water usage and
used water more efficiently, and indicated that they do everything they can and do not
pollute or litter.
Statistically fewer residents in 2009 indicated that they cleaned up trash at parks and
beaches as a way to prevent pollution (2009: 11%; 2008: 15%; 2007: 15%).
• The following sub-groups were the most likely to indicate that they had not done
anything or declined to state what they had done to prevent water pollution
based on the information they heard:
o Residents who had lived in Carlsbad 15 years or more;
o Respondents who had never visited the Village;
o Homeowners;
o Men;
o Residents 45 years and older;
o Residents of 92009.
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
47
EXPERIENCE VISITING THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
Overall, 97 percent of Carlsbad residents have visited Carlsbad’s Downtown Village. The
majority of residents regularly visited (53%), 25 percent sometimes visited (once a
month or more), and 18 percent seldom visited the Village.
Residents’ frequency of visiting the Village in 2009 remained consistent with 2008 and
2007 levels (2009: 97%; 2008: 97%; 2007: 96%).
Figure 27 Frequency Visiting Carlsbad’s Downtown Village
55.5%
51.9%
53.4%
24.1%
24.3%
25.2%
16.5%
20.3%
18.4%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2007
2008
2009
Regularly Sometimes Seldom Never DK/NA
^
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
¥ Statistically significant change: 2009 to 2008 (p< .05) ł Statistically significant: 2009 to 2007 ^ Statistically significant: 2008 to 2007
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
48
Below is a sub-group analysis of residents who regularly visited the Carlsbad Village
(at least once a week).
• Residents with a “High” or “Medium” sense of community were much more likely
to regularly visit the Village than those with a “Low” sense of community.
• Residents who watched the Carlsbad City Channel were more likely to regularly
visit the Village than those who had access to the channel but never watched.
• Residents who had lived in the City for less than one year or 15 years or more
were more likely to regularly visit the Village as compared to those who had lived
in the City between one and 14 years.
• Residents who referred to the North County Times, social media websites, flyers
in their water bill, or television news for information about city issues, services or
activities were more likely to regularly visit the Village than those who utilized
other information sources.
• Residents without children were more likely than those with children to regularly
visit the Village.
• Compared with residents from other ethnic backgrounds, Asian respondents
were the least likely to report regularly visiting the Village.
• A lower proportion of residents in the 35 to 54 year age group reported regularly
visiting the Village as compared to residents in other age groups.
• Residents living in zip codes 92008 or 92010 were more likely than those in
92009 or 92011 to regularly visit (92008: 81%; 92010: 68%; 92011: 49%; 92009:
27%).
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
49
Among residents who had visited Carlsbad’s Downtown Village, 88 percent rated their
experience positively, with 43 percent rating it as “Excellent” and 45 percent rating it as
“Good.”
Among the 20 respondents who reported a “Poor” or “Very poor” experience, the top
reasons for their negative experience involved a dislike of some of the people in the
Village and their activities, not enough parking, a desire for more unique businesses and
better restaurants, and too much traffic.
Aside from fewer residents rating their Village experience as “Very poor” in 2009, there
were no statistically significant differences in overall positive, fair, or negative ratings for
residents’ experience visiting the Village from 2008 or 2007.
Figure 28 Experience Visiting Carlsbad Village (n=970)21
21 Residents who were not sure whether or not they had visited the Village (i.e., DK/NA responses) were
filtered out of the analysis for their experience visiting the Village. As such, the percentages displayed for
2008 and 2007 are slightly different from those presented in the 2008 and 2007 reports.
0.8%
0.5%
1.1%
10.3%
43.7%
43.6%
0.2%
0.6%
1.8%
9.8%
45.1%
42.4%
0.5%
0.1%
2.0%
9.2%
44.9%
43.3%
0%20%40%60%80%
DK/NA
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
2009
2008
2007
Positive
2009 = 88%
2008 = 88%
2007 = 87%
¥
¥ Statistically significant change: 2009 to 2008 (p< .05) ł Statistically significant: 2009 to 2007 ^ Statistically significant: 2008 to 2007
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
50
Below is an analysis of residents’ experience visiting the Village by resident sub-
groups (among those who had visited).
• In general, residents who had a positive experience visiting Carlsbad’s
Downtown Village were more likely to rate other aspects of life in Carlsbad
favorably. Ratings were positively correlated with: residents’ views regarding
quality of life; direction of the community; confidence in city government; sense of
community; safety walking alone in their neighborhood; satisfaction with city
services; and satisfaction with city-resident communication.
• A regression analysis revealed the following as the top predictors of residents’
experience visiting the Village:
o Ratings for trash collection services;
o Sense of community; and
o Satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide law enforcement services.
• Residents with a “High” or “Medium” sense of community were much more likely
to report a positive experience than those with a “Low” sense of community.
• As one might expect, residents who visited the Village at least once a month
were much more likely to report a positive experience than those who visited less
than once a month.
o The majority of residents who visited once a week or more rated their
experience as “Excellent.”
• Although there was no difference in overall positive ratings by length of
residence, those who had lived in Carlsbad for less than one year or 15 years or
more were the most likely to rate their experience as “Excellent.”
• Renters rated their Village experience more positively than owners (96% vs.
86%).
• Female residents were more likely than men to rate their experience positively
(92% vs. 84%).
• Residents in the 18 to 24 year group were the most likely to rate their experience
as “Excellent,” those 35 to 44 were the most likely to rate it as “Good,” and
residents 25 to 34 years or age were the most likely to rate is as “Fair.”
• Although there was no difference in overall positive ratings, Hispanic or Latino(a)
respondents were the most likely to rate their experience as “Excellent.”
• Residents in zip codes 92008 and 92010 were the most likely to rate their
experience as “Excellent” and those in 92010 or 92011 provided the highest
overall positive ratings.
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
51
METHODOLOGY
The table below provides an overview of the methodology utilized for the project.
Table 5 Overview of Project Methodology
Method Telephone Survey
Universe 80,960 Residents 18 Years and Older within the City of Carlsbad
Number of Respondents 1,000 Residents Completed a Survey
Average Length 20 minutes
Field Dates September 10 – 24, 2009
Margin of Error The maximum margin of error for questions answered by all
1,000 respondents was +/-3.08% (95% level of confidence)
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Prior to beginning the project, BW Research met with the City of Carlsbad’s
Performance Measurement Resource Team to determine the research objectives for the
2009 study. The main research objectives of the study were to:
• assess residents’ perceptions regarding satisfaction with city services, quality of life,
sense of community, safety in their neighborhood, city government, and city-
resident communication;
• evaluate awareness of specific library services and programs;
• identify residents’ views regarding the region’s water supply as well as their
awareness of water pollution prevention; and
• assess residents’ experience visiting the Carlsbad Village.
QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
Through an iterative process, BW Research worked closely with the City to develop a
survey instrument that met all the research objectives of the study. In developing the
instrument, BW Research utilized techniques to overcome known biases in survey
research and minimize potential sources of measurement error within the survey.
SAMPLING METHOD
A random digit dial (RDD) methodology was utilized to interview a representative sample
of residents 18 years and older within the City of Carlsbad. The RDD methodology is
based on the concept that all residents with a telephone in their home have an equal
probability of being called and invited to participate in the survey.
2009 Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Report
City of Carlsbad
52
The RDD method includes both the listed and unlisted phone numbers that fall into the
active telephone exchanges within a City (the exchange includes the area code and first
three digits of the phone number). Since telephone exchanges often overlap with
neighboring cities, screener questions were utilized at the beginning of the survey to
ensure that the residents who participated in the survey lived within the City boundaries.
DATA COLLECTION
Prior to beginning data collection, BW Research conducted interviewer training and also
pre-tested the survey instrument to ensure that all the words and questions were easily
understood by respondents.
Interviews were generally conducted from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm Monday through Friday
and 10:00 am to 2:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday to ensure that residents who
commuted or were not at home during the week had an opportunity to participate.
Throughout data collection, BW Research checked the data for accurateness and
completeness and monitored the percentage of residents with language barriers to
determine whether or not the survey should be translated into a language other than
English. Since only 0.2 percent of calls were identified as having a language barrier,
translating the survey into languages other than English was not necessary to ensure
representative results.
DATA PROCESSING
Prior to analysis, BW Research examined the demographic characteristics of the 1,000
respondents who completed a survey to the known universe of residents 18 years and
older using the San Diego Association of Government’s (SANDAG’s) 2009 demographic
estimates for the City of Carlsbad. It is estimated that among Carlsbad’s 104,652
residents, 80,960 are 18 years and older. After examining the dimensions of zip code,
gender, ethnicity, and age, the data were weighted to appropriately represent the
universe of adult residents and ensure generalizability of the results.
A NOTE ABOUT MARGIN OF ERROR AND ANALYSIS OF SUB-GROUPS
The overall margin of error for the study, at the 95% level of confidence, was between
+/-1.85 percent and +/- 3.08 percent (depending on the distribution of each question) for
questions answered by all 1,000 respondents. However, it is important to note that
questions asked of smaller groups of respondents (such as questions that were only
asked of residents who reported low satisfaction) or analysis of sub-groups (such as
examining differences by length of residence or gender) will have a margin of error
greater than +/-3.08 percent—with the exact margin of error dependent on the number of
respondents in each sub-group. BW Research has utilized statistical testing to account
for the margin of error within sub-groups and highlight statistically significant sub-group
differences throughout this report.
COMPARISONS OVER TIME
Similar to the analysis of sub-groups, BW Research utilized statistical testing to assess
whether the changes evidenced from previous survey years were due to actual changes
in attitudes, perceptions, or behavior or simply due to chance (i.e., margin of error).
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Toplines
City of Carlsbad
A-1
APPENDIX A: TOPLINES
City of Carlsbad
Resident Survey
October 2009
Toplines (n=1,000)
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Introduction:
Hello, my name is ______ and I’m calling on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. The City has
hired BW Research, an independent research agency, to conduct a survey concerning
issues in your community and we would like to get your opinions.
(If needed): This should just take a few minutes of your time.
(If needed): I assure you that we are an independent research agency and that all of
your responses will remain strictly confidential.
For statistical reasons, I would like to speak to the youngest adult male currently at
home that is at least 18 years of age. (Or youngest female depending on statistics of
previous completed interviews)
(IF THERE IS NO MALE/FEMALE AT LEAST 18 AVAILABLE, THEN ASK:)
Ok, then I’d like to speak to the youngest adult female currently at home that is at
least 18 years of age.
(IF THERE IS NO MALE/FEMALE AT LEAST 18 AVAILABLE, ASK FOR
CALLBACK TIME)
(If needed): This is a study about issues of importance in your community – it is a
survey only and we are not selling anything.
(If needed): This survey should only take a few minutes of your time.
(If the individual mentions the national do not call list, respond according to
American Marketing Association guidelines): “Most types of opinion and marketing
research studies are exempt under the law that congress recently passed. That law was
passed to regulate the activities of the telemarketing industry. This is a legitimate
research call. Your opinions count!”)
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
PLEASE NOTE TRADITIONAL ROUNDING RULES APPLIED
NOT ALL PERCENTAGES WILL EQUAL EXACTLY 100%
2009 Resident Survey Toplines
City of Carlsbad
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Toplines
City of Carlsbad
A-2
Screener Questions
A. Before we begin, I want to confirm that you live within our study area. Are you
currently a resident of the City of Carlsbad?
100% Yes
0% No [Thank and terminate]
B. And what is your home zip code? (If respondent gives the PO Box zip codes 92013
or 92018, prompt them to give their home zip code for survey purposes).
27.8% 92008
33.5% 92009
15.9% 92010
22.8% 92011
0% Other [Specify:_____] [Thank and terminate]
0% Don’t know/ refused [Thank and terminate]
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
1. To begin with, how long have you lived in the City of Carlsbad?
4.3% Less than 1 year
22.9% 1 to 4 years
21.6% 5 to 9 years
13.6% 10 to 14 years
37.3% 15 years or more
0.4% (Don't Read) DK/NA
2. Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Carlsbad
is doing to provide city services? (GET ANSWER, THEN ASK:) Would that be very
(satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)?
55.5% Very satisfied
33.4% Somewhat satisfied
3.5% Somewhat dissatisfied
4.1% Very dissatisfied
3.4% (Don't Read) DK/NA
With DK/NA Factored Out (n=966)
57.5% Very satisfied
34.6% Somewhat satisfied
3.6% Somewhat dissatisfied
4.3% Very dissatisfied
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Toplines
City of Carlsbad
A-3
3. How would you rate your quality of life in Carlsbad?
61.9% Excellent
33.9% Good
3.6% Fair
0.0% Poor
0.0% Very poor
0.6% (Don't Read) DK/NA
With DK/NA Factored Out (n=994)
62.3% Excellent
34.1% Good
3.6% Fair
0.0% Poor
0.0% Very poor
4. Overall, do you feel the quality of life in Carlsbad is getting better, getting worse, or
staying about the same?
15.1% Getting better
20.9% Getting worse
59.8% Staying about the same
4.2% (Don't Read) DK/NA
With DK/NA Factored Out (n=958)
15.8% Getting better
21.8% Getting worse
62.4% Staying about the same
[ASK IF Q3= 4 OR 5 OR Q4=2]
5. In your opinion, what is the number one thing that the City of Carlsbad could do to
improve the quality of life within the community? (DO NOT READ - ONE
RESPONSE ONLY)
n=209
36.7% Stop building/ stop growth
12.0% Fix the traffic problems
7.8% More jobs
6.4% Better economic plan/ don't waste money/ lower taxes
6.3% Increase/ improve police services
3.7% Increase recreation opportunities
2.9% Improve schools
2.9% Need new Mayor and/ or City Council
2.8% Preserve more open space
2.5% Improve the quality of the roads and other infrastructure
2.4% Remove the illegal immigrants
1.4% Limit airport growth/ reduce noise
0.7% Build Desalination Plant
0.7% Improve beach access
0.4% Nothing needs improvement
3.8% Other (Please Specify_________)
6.6% (Don't Read) DK/NA
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Toplines
City of Carlsbad
A-4
6. Now I’d like to ask a couple questions about safety in the City. When you are _____
would you say that you feel very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very
unsafe?
RANDOMIZE (DON’T
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very READ)
Safe Safe Unsafe Unsafe
A. Walking alone in your neighborhood
DK/NA
during the day ................................ 85.5% 11.4% 1.6% 0.1% 1.3%
B. Walking alone in your neighborhood
after dark ....................................... 52.3% 33.0% 8.3% 1.2% 5.2%
Question 6 with “Don’t Know/ No Answer” (DK/NA) Filtered Out
RANDOMIZE Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Safe Safe Unsafe
A. Walking alone in your neighborhood
Unsafe
during the day (n=987) ................... 86.7% 11.5% 1.7% 0.1%
B. Walking alone in your neighborhood
after dark (n=948) .......................... 55.1% 34.8% 8.7% 1.3%
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Toplines
City of Carlsbad
A-5
7. Next, please think about the sense of community that you feel living in Carlsbad.
Would you say that you feel a strong sense of community, a weak sense of
community, or no sense of community at all?
(IF STRONG OR WEAK, THEN ASK:) Would that be very (strong/weak) or
somewhat (strong/weak)?
26.3% Very strong
38.6% Somewhat strong
22.9% Somewhat weak
4.1% Very weak
4.4% None at all
3.6% (Don't Read) DK/NA
8. Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements
about your neighborhood.
Here’s the (first/next) one: ____________. (READ ITEM AND ASK:) Do you strongly
agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the
statement?
RANDOMIZE Neither (DON’T)
Strongly Agree nor Strongly READ)
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree
A. I can recognize most of the
DK/NA
people who live in my
neighborhood ......................... 26.2% 47.8% 4.2% 15.0% 6.0% 0.7%
B. Very few of my neighbors
know me ................................ 10.1% 27.7% 3.9% 36.9% 20.9% 0.6%
C. I have almost no influence over
what my neighborhood is like . 12.4% 29.7% 7.5% 36.3% 12.5% 1.6%
D. My neighbors and I want the same
things from this community .... 27.5% 47.1% 8.3% 7.0% 2.6% 7.5%
E. If there is a problem in my
neighborhood, people who live
here can get it solved ............ 20.5% 49.7% 8.5% 10.6% 5.4% 5.3%
F. It is very important for me to feel
a sense of community with other
residents ................................ 30.6% 48.4% 7.6% 10.7% 2.0% 0.7%
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Toplines
City of Carlsbad
A-6
9. Overall, how confident are you in the Carlsbad City government to make decisions
which positively affect the lives of its community members?
21.6% Very confident
52.2% Somewhat confident
15.7% Somewhat unconfident
6.5% Very unconfident
4.0% (Don't Read) DK/NA
10. Now I’m going to read a list of services provided by the City of Carlsbad. For each
one, please tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City of Carlsbad is doing to
provide each service to residents.
Would you say you are satisfied, dissatisfied or neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with
the City’s efforts to: _____________? (GET ANSWER AND THEN ASK:) Would that
be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)?
RANDOMIZE Entire List, but Keep K-M Together and Randomly Insert Neither (DON’T)
Very Somewhat Sat nor Somewhat Very READ)
Satisfied Satisfied Dissat Dissat Dissat
A. Repair and maintain local
DK/NA
streets and roads .................... 47.4% 38.8% 1.6% 8.9% 2.8% 0.4%
B. Manage traffic congestion on
city streets ............................. 32.4% 36.3% 3.3% 18.0% 8.8% 1.1%
C. Manage residential growth
and development ................... 21.6% 39.5% 4.2% 14.1% 16.3% 4.3%
D. Maintain the business
climate in Carlsbad ................ 38.1% 41.0% 6.3% 5.7% 3.5% 5.4%
E. Provide fire protection and
emergency medical services .. 71.0% 19.1% 2.6% 2.2% 0.7% 4.3%
F. Provide law enforcement
services ................................. 62.8% 25.4% 1.4% 4.5% 3.9% 2.0%
G. Provide local arts and cultural
opportunities .......................... 48.4% 35.5% 6.2% 5.0% 1.6% 3.3%
H. Provide library services ............. 75.8% 18.9% 1.7% 1.2% 0.4% 2.1%
I. Provide water services .............. 54.2% 31.8% 3.0% 5.3% 2.5% 3.3%
J. Provide sewer services ............. 57.7% 28.5% 3.7% 4.2% 0.8% 5.2%
K. Maintain city parks ................... 63.6% 28.2% 1.7% 2.0% 1.7% 2.8%
L. Provide recreation programs ..... 55.0% 27.1% 5.8% 4.4% 1.0% 6.7%
M. Provide trails and walking
paths...................................... 49.9% 32.8% 4.3% 5.0% 2.2% 5.8%
N. Protect water quality in the
City’s creeks, lagoons, and
the ocean ............................... 39.5% 38.3% 5.4% 6.9% 4.4% 5.5%
O. Provide enough undeveloped
areas in the City for habitat
protection ............................... 33.8% 32.9% 7.0% 12.5% 7.9% 5.8%
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Toplines
City of Carlsbad
A-7
Question 10 with “Don’t Know/ No Answer” (DK/NA) Filtered Out
Neither
Very Somewhat Sat nor Somewhat Very
Satisfied Satisfied Dissat Dissat
A. Repair and maintain local
Dissat
streets and roads (n=996) ....... 47.6% 39.0% 1.6% 9.0% 2.8%
B. Manage traffic congestion on
city streets (n=989) ................ 32.8% 36.7% 3.4% 18.2% 8.9%
C. Manage residential growth
and development (n=957) ...... 22.5% 41.2% 4.4% 14.8% 17.1%
D. Maintain the business
climate in Carlsbad (n=946) ... 40.3% 43.4% 6.6% 6.0% 3.7%
E. Provide fire protection and
emergency medical
services (n=957) .................... 74.2% 19.9% 2.8% 2.3% 0.8%
F. Provide law enforcement
services (n=980) .................... 64.1% 25.9% 1.5% 4.5% 4.0%
G. Provide local arts and cultural
opportunities (n=967) ............. 50.0% 36.7% 6.5% 5.2% 1.6%
H. Provide library
services (n=979) .................... 77.4% 19.3% 1.7% 1.2% 0.4%
I. Provide water
services (n=967) .................... 56.0% 32.8% 3.1% 5.5% 2.6%
J. Provide sewer
services (n=948) .................... 60.8% 30.0% 3.9% 4.4% 0.8%
K. Maintain city parks (n=972) ...... 65.4% 29.0% 1.8% 2.0% 1.8%
L. Provide recreation
programs (n=933) .................. 59.0% 29.1% 6.2% 4.7% 1.1%
M. Provide trails and walking
paths (n=942) ........................ 53.0% 34.8% 4.6% 5.3% 2.4%
N. Protect water quality in the
City’s creeks, lagoons, and
the ocean (n=945) ................. 41.8% 40.5% 5.7% 7.3% 4.6%
O. Provide enough undeveloped
areas in the City for habitat
protection (n=942) ................. 35.9% 35.0% 7.5% 13.3% 8.3%
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Toplines
City of Carlsbad
A-8
11. The City of Carlsbad receives a number of services from outside agencies. For each
of the following, please let me know if you feel the quality of each service is
excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?
(DON’T
RANDOMIZE Very READ)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Poor
A. Trash collection services .......... 40.6% 47.9% 7.2% 3.3% 0.6% 0.3%
DK/NA
B. Street sweeping services .......... 22.8% 48.1% 15.3% 6.0% 2.0% 5.9%
C. Hazardous waste disposal ........ 17.2% 35.2% 15.4% 8.1% 3.2% 21.0%
D. Recycling collection services .... 37.6% 41.2% 11.8% 7.0% 1.3% 1.1%
Question 11 with “Don’t Know/ No Answer” (DK/NA) Filtered Out
RANDOMIZE Very
Excellent Good Fair Poor Poor
A. Trash collection
services (n=997) .................... 40.7% 48.1% 7.3% 3.4% 0.6%
B. Street sweeping
services (n=941) .................... 24.2% 51.1% 16.2% 6.4% 2.1%
C. Hazardous waste
disposal (n=790) .................... 21.7% 44.6% 19.5% 10.2% 4.0%
D. Recycling collection
services (n=989) .................... 38.0% 41.6% 11.9% 7.1% 1.3%
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Toplines
City of Carlsbad
A-9
Next I would like to ask you a few questions about the City of Carlsbad’s Library
programs and services.
12. For each of the following library services or programs, please tell me if you have
heard, read or seen anything about these being offered at Carlsbad’s Library.
Here’s the (first/next) one _________ (READ ITEM). Were you aware that the City of
Carlsbad’s Library offers this program or service?
RANDOMIZE (DON’T
Not READ
Aware Aware
A. Improving the reading and other literacy
DK/NA
skills of children and adults of all ages
and reading levels .............................................. 64.9% 33.0% 2.1%
B. Access at home to online magazines and
other online subscription sources ....................... 30.7% 66.9% 2.4%
C. Access at the library to computers with Internet
access ................................................................ 88.2% 10.0% 1.9%
D. Cultural events at the library such as concerts
and author presentations .................................... 68.3% 30.0% 1.7%
E. Book delivery to residents that are physically
limited from leaving their homes ......................... 20.6% 77.5% 1.9%
Switching gears a bit, now I would like to get your opinions about city-resident
communication.
13. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents?
(GET ANSWER, THEN ASK:) Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or
somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)?
29.3% Very satisfied
49.5% Somewhat satisfied
11.1% Somewhat dissatisfied
5.0% Very dissatisfied
5.1% (Don't Read) DK/NA
With DK/NA Factored Out (n=949)
30.9% Very satisfied
52.2% Somewhat satisfied
11.7% Somewhat dissatisfied
5.2% Very dissatisfied
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Toplines
City of Carlsbad
A-10
14. Please tell me how often you use each of the following sources when looking for
information about City issues, services or activities: never, seldom, sometimes or
regularly?
(If needed: Seldom is less than once a month, sometimes is once a month or more,
and regularly is once a week or more.)
(DON’T RANDOMIZE READ) Never Seldom Sometimes Regularly
A. The City of Carlsbad web site ... 33.1% 20.7% 28.0% 17.7% 0.5%
DK/NA
B. The North County Times or
www.nctimes.com .................. 38.7% 13.8% 19.1% 27.5% 0.9%
C. The San Diego Union-Tribune or
www.signonsandiego.com ..... 32.8% 15.7% 21.9% 29.2% 0.4%
D. The community services
or recreation guide ................. 20.4% 17.8% 29.2% 31.8% 0.8%
E. Social media websites such as
Facebook, Twitter or
YouTube ................................ 64.1% 10.9% 7.6% 16.7% 0.7%
F. Flyers that come in your
water bill ................................ 29.8% 15.8% 22.9% 25.5% 6.0%
G. Flyers at city buildings like the
Library, Senior Center, or
community centers ................. 32.2% 24.5% 27.4% 14.4% 1.4%
H. Television news ........................ 22.3% 19.4% 22.1% 35.3% 0.8%
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Toplines
City of Carlsbad
A-11
15. What TV service does your home subscribe to?
58.9% Time Warner
16.8% AT&T U-Verse (SKIP TO Q18)
7.3% Direct TV( SKIP TO Q18)
6.1% Dish Network (SKIP TO Q18)
5.0% None (SKIP TO Q18)
5.8% (Don't Read) DK/NA (SKIP TO Q18)
16. How often do you watch the Carlsbad City Channel, on channel 24 or 126: never,
seldom, sometimes or regularly?
(If needed: Seldom is less than once a month, sometimes is once a month or more,
and regularly is once a week or more.)
n=589
51.7% Never (SKIP TO Q18)
30.7% Seldom
13.0% Sometimes
4.6% Regularly
0.0% (Don't Read) DK/NA (SKIP TO Q18)
17. What is the primary reason you watch the Carlsbad City Channel? (DO NOT READ –
RECORD FIRST RESPONSE ONLY)
n=285
47.3% Get information on City/ community events
19.8% Watch City Council Meetings
16.3% Nothing else on/ channel surfing
7.3% Certain issues that interest me
1.4% School issues
1.2% Arts and music
0.5% Local sports
0.6% Other (Please Specify_________)
5.5% DK/NA
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Toplines
City of Carlsbad
A-12
Next I would like to ask you a few questions about water in the region and in Carlsbad.
18. Generally speaking, how would you characterize the region’s current water supply: in
shortage, an adequate supply, or in a surplus situation? [IF ANSWER IS
SHORTAGE] Is that a severe shortage or a water shortage, but less than severe?
24.4% Severe water shortage
34.7% Water shortage but less than severe
28.9% Adequate water supply
2.0% Surplus water period
10.0% (Don't Read) DK/NA
Next I would like you to think about the water in Carlsbad’s creeks, lagoons, and the
ocean.
19. Have you seen or heard anything during the past year about how residents can
prevent the pollution of our creeks, lagoons, and ocean?
74.3% Yes [GO TO Q20]
24.4% No [SKIP TO Q22]
1.3% (Don't Read) DK/NA [SKIP TO Q22]
With DK/NA Factored Out (n=987)
75.3% Yes [GO TO Q20]
24.7% No [SKIP TO Q22]
20. Where do you recall seeing or hearing about ways to prevent pollution? (Don’t read
list. Multiple Response)
n=743
37.6% TV
28.0% Newspaper
15.6% Brochures
11.9% Radio
11.6% Water/ utility bill
10.7% Newsletters
10.4% Curb signs
7.0% Website
5.4% Family/ friends/ other word of mouth
4.0% Posters
3.7% Information in the mail
3.4% Flyer
2.3% Public events/ booth
2.1% School
2.1% Signs near lagoons/ beach/ trails
1.4% City building or library
0.5% Surfrider Foundation
0.2% Movie theaters
0.7% Other (Please Specify_________)
5.3% (Don’t Read) Don't know/ not sure
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Toplines
City of Carlsbad
A-13
21. Given what you have seen or heard, what have you done, if anything, to reduce the
amount of pollution in our creeks, lagoons, and oceans? [DO NOT READ – ALLOW
MULTIPLE RESPONSES]
n=743
27.8% Properly disposed of hazardous waste
18.7% Used a commercial car wash
12.1% Used environmentally friendly soaps, pesticides, etc.
10.7% Cleaned up trash at parks and beaches
9.4% Recycled
9.4% Reduced water usage/ used water more efficiently
5.1% I do everything I can/ I don't pollute
4.9% Stopped washing driveway
4.2% Cleaned up animal waste
4.2% Reduced run-off/ erosion control
4.0% Careful of what goes down sewer/ no longer dump down storm drain
1.6% Taught others/ reported violators
1.4% Don't wash cars as much/ don't wash in driveway
1.0% Don't litter
0.7% Fixed leaks
0.4% Changed landscaping
0.3% Used different/ less pesticides
1.5% Other (Please Specify_________)
16.9% Have not done anything
2.2% DK/NA
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Toplines
City of Carlsbad
A-14
Next I am going to ask you a few questions about Carlsbad Village, also referred to as
downtown Carlsbad in the northwestern part of the City.
22. How often do you visit Carlsbad’s downtown village?
53.4% Regularly, once a week or more
25.2% Sometimes, once a month or more
18.4% Seldom, less than once a month
2.7% Never [SKIP TO QA]
0.3% (Don't Read) DK/NA [SKIP TO QA]
23. How would you rate your experience while visiting Carlsbad’s downtown village?
n=970
43.3% Excellent
44.9% Good
9.2% Fair
2.0% Poor
0.1% Very poor
0.5% (Don't Read) DK/NA
With DK/NA Factored Out (n=965)
43.5% Excellent
45.2% Good
9.2% Fair
2.0% Poor
0.1% Very poor
If poor or very poor [ASK Q24 IF Q23=4 OR 5 OTHERWISE SKIP TO QA]
24. Why have you had a poor or very poor experience visiting Carlsbad’s downtown
village? (Record first two responses)
Caution: Small Sample Size, n=20
49.4% Because of the people and their activities
20.5% No enough parking
14.9% Needs more unique businesses/ better restaurants
13.6% Too much traffic
10.3% Not bike friendly
8.0% Area is not sophisticated enough for changing demographics/ much of the
area is very old/ needs to be updated
3.9% Area is not clean/ needs more upkeep
3.9% Other
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Toplines
City of Carlsbad
A-15
To wrap things up, I just have a few background
questions for comparison purposes only.
A. Do you own or rent the unit in which you live?
20.9% Rent
76.9% Own
2.2% (Don't Read) Refused
B. Please tell me how many children under 18 live in your household. _____
58.5% No children
16.6% 1 child
17.2% 2 children
6.6% 3 or more children
1.1% (Don't Read) Refused
C. In what year were you born? 19_ _ Recoded into Age.
11.1% 18 to 24 years
11.5% 25 to 34 years
16.9% 35 to 44 years
20.7% 45 to 54 years
16.3% 55 to 64 years
18.1% 65 years or older
5.4% (Don't Read) Refused
2009 Public Opinion Survey – Toplines
City of Carlsbad
A-16
D. What neighborhood do you live in within Carlsbad? [DO NOT READ, RECORD
FIRST RESPONSE]
22.3% La Costa/La Costa Canyon/
La Costa Oaks
7.6% Aviara
7.1% The Village/ Downtown
6.6% Calavera/ Calavera Hills
4.1% Carillo Ranch
2.2% Old Carlsbad
2.2% South Carlsbad
1.7% Bressi Ranch
1.7% Poinsettia
1.6% Barrio
1.4% Spinnaker Hills/Pointe
1.4% The Cove
1.2% Laguna Riviera
1.1% Tamarack
1.0% Bristol Cove
1.0% Mariners Point
0.9% North Carlsbad
0.8% Rancho Carlsbad
0.7% Rancho Ponderosa
0.7% Tanglewood
0.7% Taramar
0.6% Capri
0.6% Carlsbad Heights
0.6% Harbor Point
0.6% San Pacifico
0.6% Waters End
0.5% Aqua Hedionda Lagoon
0.5% Evans Point
0.4% Canterbury
0.4% Chestnut Hills
0.4% Lakeshore Gardens
0.4% Las Playas
0.4% Northwest Carlsbad
0.4% Sea Cliff
0.4% Vista Pacifica
0.3% Alga Hills
0.3% Bay Collection
0.3% Sea Bright
0.3% The Ranch
0.2% Altamira
0.2% Central Carlsbad
0.2% Hanover Beach Colony
0.2% Lanikai Mobile Home Park
0.2% Northeast Carlsbad
0.2% Pacific View Estates
0.2% Santa Fe Trails
0.2% The Summit
0.1% Camino Hills
0.1% Carlsbad Crest
0.1% Spyglass
8.3% Other (Please Specify_________)
7.3% None, I just live in Carlsbad
7.0% Refused
What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? (IF HESITATE, READ):
72.8% White or Caucasian
13.2% Hispanic or Latino
3.5% Asian
1.3% African American or Black
0.5% Other (Please Specify_________)
8.7% (Don't Read) Refused
Those are all of the questions I have for you.
Thank you very much for participating!
E. Gender (Recorded from voice, not asked):
48.0% Male
52.0% Female
January 19, 2010
1
CRTMP UPDATE
Today’s Agenda
Review of Traffic Calming
Overview of Current CRTMP
Outcomes of Proposed Changes
Proposed Major Changes
Questions
2
What is Traffic Calming?
“The combination of mainly physical measures that
reduces the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alters
driver behavior and improves conditions for non-
motorized street users”
The City Council approved a traffic calming program
called the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management
Program (CRTMP) in May 2001
3
Current CRTMP has 3 Phases
Phase I: Neighborhood
Education
Enforcement
Phase II: Study
Build Neighborhood Consensus
Prepare Traffic Calming Plan
Phase III: Implementation
Design and install measures in traffic calming plan
4
Existing CRTMP Projects
Numerous neighborhoods have entered Phase I
Council funded two neighborhoods for Phase II
Both Phase II projects completed Traffic Calming
Plans and placed on hold until CRTMP revisions are
considered/approved
Current Phase II projects not eligible to consider stop
signs, speed lumps, or speed tables
5
Outcomes of Proposed Changes
Clarify the type of streets allowed into the program
Include a new phase with low cost measures
Revise current scoring criteria to define a funding
threshold for expensive measures
Allow use of “residential stop signs”
Allow use of vertical deflection measures (speed tables
and speed lumps)under defined conditions
Recommend spacing of traffic calming measures about
300-700 feet with ideal spacing of 500 feet
6
Revised CRTMP Proposes 4 Phases
Phase I: Enforcement and Education
Phase II: Low Cost Alternatives (Engineering)
Phase III: Traffic Calming Concept Plan
Phase IV: Traffic Calming Design and Construction
Revised CRTMP recommended for approval by a 4-0
vote of the TSC on December 7, 2009
7
Phase I: Enforcement
Criteria to enter program Approval needed
Street width 40 feet max
Residence district or school zone
Transportation
Director
Police Chief
Enforcement
Education
Signs (regulatory/warning)
Neighborhood speed monitoring 8
Pavement legends
Speed Sentry
Other signs (yard signs)
Phase I Toolbox options:
Phase II: Engineering
Criteria Approval needed
Critical speed over 32 mph Concept Plan prepared by staff
approved by 67% of residents
Must have 50% response rate
of mail survey
Council ordinance for
residential stop signs
Phase II Toolbox options:
Lane striping
Residential stop signs: $1,000/approach (cost for each leg)
Speed tables: $8,000-$14,000 (least desirable-requires FD/PD approval)
9
Phase III: Traffic Calming Plan
Criteria Approval needed
Project must score more than
50 points on Qualification
Criteria Scoring Worksheet
Traffic Calming Plan
(prepared by staff) approved
by 67% of property owners
Must have 50% response rate
of mail survey
10
Partial list of measures in Phase III/IV Toolbox:
Traffic circle
Chicanes
Curb bulb outs/entry feature
Speed lumps: $5,000 (last resort-requires F.D. and P.D. approval)
Phase IV: Design & Construction
Criteria Approval needed
Approved Phase III Traffic
Calming Plan
City Council funding
11
Speed Lump * (Phase III/IV)Speed Table * (Phase II)
* Requires approval by Fire Dept. and Police Dept.
12
Cost
Current Program Proposed Program
All signs installed using sign
budget
Council approval needed to
fund Traffic Calming Plan
Council approval needed to
fund construction of traffic
calming projects
Prepare Low Cost
Alternative Plans in-house
New budget item for low
cost alternatives
Council approval need to
fund Traffic Calming Plan
and project construction
13
Options
Status Quo –continue using existing CRTMP
Revise CRTMP per TSC recommendations
Postpone CRTMP revisions while studying a pilot
program using Donna Drive and Sierra Morena
Avenue projects
14
Pilot Program
Use Donna Drive and Sierra Morena Avenue as pilot
projects
Develop a low cost alternative plan using proposed
revisions to CRTMP
Possibly residential stop signs and speed tables using
balance of balance of existing funds ($30,000 each
project)
Prepare before and after study including resident
survey to test effectiveness of new measures
15
Questions?
16
Residential Stop Signs
Advantages
Stop Signs in residence districts/school zones that do
not meet CAMUTCD guidelines
Cost effective way to limit effective roadway length to
500 feet
Minimal impact to emergency response times
Residential streets typically spaced 300-700 feet apart
so stop sign spacing should match traffic calming goal
17
Residential Stop Signs
Disadvantages
Not a self-enforcing measure
May change speed enforcement issue into a stop sign
compliance issue
Penalizes drivers adhering to speed limit
May only reduce vehicle speed within 150 feet of stop
sign
Increased noise and air pollution resulting from
vehicle acceleration/deceleration
Increases driver frustration
18
Speed Tables
Advantages
Essentially flat-topped speed humps long enough for a
passenger car to rest on top
Generally have higher design speeds and produce a
gentler ride than speed humps
Similar in design and concept to raised crosswalks
allowed in current CRTMP
Trend is towards using speed tables over speed humps
Self-enforcing to reduce speed
19
Speed Tables
Disadvantages
Penalizes drivers adhering to speed limit
Impacts emergency response times
Other Phase II measures (i.e., residential stop signs)
must be considered first
May not be allowed-Police and Fire Department staff will
have final approval of speed table locations and spacing
20
Speed Lumps
Reduced impact to emergency response times of large fire
apparatus by providing gaps corresponding to the
distance between front and rear tires
Abrupt ride for ambulances that can’t straddle openings
Use of speed lumps requires special approval of both the
Fire Department and Police Department
Speed bumps/humps continue to be prohibited in the
CRTMP due to emergency response impact (vehicles
must virtually stop before traversing each measure)
21
Effective Roadway Length
Residential streets ideally designed to a residential
neighborhood scale
Achieves vehicle speeds and traffic volumes consistent with
typical neighborhood uses
Lower speeds when driver makes a complete stop or a
significant turning movement about every 500-700 feet
Speeding issues typical along tangent roadways sections
exceeding 700 feet
Traffic Calming essentially restricts effective roadway
length by installing measures at regular intervals
CRTMP recommends installing traffic calming measure at
about 500 ft spacing with a 300 foot minimum spacing
22
Traffic Management Program
Phase III Qualification Criteria Scoring Worksheet
1.Travel Speed (30 pts. max.)
10 points for each mile per hour the 85th percentile speed is over 32 miles per hour
2.Traffic Volume (40 pts. max.)
ADT divided by 100 or peak hour volume divided by 10 (use higher number)
3.Collision History (5 pts. max)
Any correctable collision in past 5 years)
4.Sidewalks (10 pts. max.)
No sidewalk or pedestrian pathways exists on either side of the street = 10 points
No sidewalk or pedestrian pathway exists along at least one side of the street = 5 points
5.School Proximity (5 pts. max.)
School grounds abut candidate street = 5 points
PAOI is located within 500 feet of school grounds = 3 points
PAOI is located within 1,000 feet of school grounds = 1 point
6.Pedestrian Crossings (10 pts. max.)
School crosswalk (yellow crosswalk) is located on a street in the PAOI = 5 points
Major crosswalk is located on a street in the PAOI = 10 points
A MINIMUM SCORE OF 51 POINTS IS REQUIRED TO QUALIFY FOR PHASE III 23
24
25