HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.15.►
DATE: May 3, 2007
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director -,e
RE: 2007 Community Survey on Site Development and Zoning Standards.
At the City Council meeting on January 11, 2007, Mayor pro tem Jones proposed that the
Town conduct a community survey to get an update on resident opinions about current
site development and zoning standards. With input from Councilmember Jones and
Councilmember Mordo, staff prepared a list of sixteen survey questions. Many of the
questions were identical to those used in the 2001 Community Survey. (Attachment 3)
Godbe Research, a professional survey firm, was hired to conduct the telephone survey.
After the survey was completed in April 2007, the Town received several complaints
from residents regarding the survey and the quality of the field surveyors who conducted
the interviews. Godbe Research has submitted a letter responding to the complaints.
(Attachment 4)
Results of the 2007 telephone survey and a chart comparing data from the 2001 survey is
included for your review. (Attachments 1 and 2) Staff is seeking Planning Commission's
comments on the survey results. A report on the survey along with the Planning
Commission's recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for review in
May.
Attachments
1. Comparison of 2001 and 2007 Survey Results
2. 2007 Community Survey Topline Report
3. 2001 Community Survey and Results
4. Letter from Godbe Research dated April 18, 2007
MKWMO
W
D
(qN
N W D
M O x N x
O
O
mci
D
_
p
o
x
< < m
N
N
w w
f
�r
�
It
I
4 �
O
I
Z
$ Z
.3fN
Tj N D N N
W_
O
N O_ N
K
w T O OTl
(R O
tCi. O N
O
<
<
6
i'
y N
�r D
J �
s .ins O
s p
N
M
■
mg
FP
i
9�5
"\\E
�|
!§E
-
`!
®
[#
{/
�-
_FL
-(
;§
!
\�
6.
}\\
(
\
\
■
9-
_\
(!
_
.:EP
!!()
\}
....
j
/
«
aff6
}
(
(
\
k
({
o
\
\
\
�/
EF
§
T
Ti,
O
c
'o
n
Q
O
o o
o A Q 1
w
'm
3a<ww
s O
3,w oa c
da °'
p
w
d
d
p
�
w
m
�
O
o m �
m w
N S O
T
Ti,
O
c
'o
n
Q
O
o o
o A Q 1
w
'm
3a<ww
s O
3,w oa c
da °'
mj0i3o
��aa¢
w � O
N
o m �
m w
N S O
a as <
o J J
mm
3 0
w �a
m
3 w w
(O 7 N
�a
¢0
g&
■
\\0 /
\
Er
OZ
�
� \
C1
am
D
o
c
D c
m p c
cO
°i n
o
o
0 o
re
o �o
a
n�
3s
�3o
Eos
o
m o
E m °
c
p
10 p
- p
O N
3
N Q
3 N
Ory
N
� N ry
O
O
O
0 O
S
Q O
� �
p
C6
° p
S
O
m n
a O
i3 C
�Q
am
3.6
N!O
D�
4�
N
O p
O
O O
O
arTA j :;=-: 2
Town of Loa Alas Hills
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS SURVEY
Topline Report
April 3, 2007
(n = 300)
1. To begin, how many years have you lived at your current residence?
Now I'd like to ask you about some site development issues in Los Altos Hills. The Town's site
development standards such as minimum development area (MDA), minimum floor area (MFA), height
and grading limits, were established to protect the natural features and rum] character of the Town and
minimize runoff and erosion concems related to construction on slopes by limiting square footage of
artifcially emplaced surfaces.
2. Do you feel the following development regulations are too restrictive, too permissive, or just right?
Here's the first/next one . Do you feel this development regulation is too restrictive, too
permissive, orjust right?
Topline Report APH12007
Godh Research Town of Los Altos Hills
3. The Lot Unit Factor, or LUF, is a formula to calculate the allowable Floor and development area on
residential sites and is based on total acreage and slope characteristics of the property. For
properties with a LUF of at least 0.50 (for example, a 7 acre lot with 30% slope), the minimum
allowable floor area is 5,000 sq. ft. and the minimum allowable development area is 7,500 sq. ft. Do
you feel the , is too restrictive, too permissive, or just right?
4. Should the allowable size of a house be reduced as the lot becomes steepen
5. Should the minimum allowable floor area be increased from 5,000 sq. ft. to closer to 6,000 sq. ft. for
all one acre lots regardless of the slope on the property?
6. Should the minimum allowable development area be increased from 7,500 sq. ft. to closer to 8,500
sq. ft. for all one acre lots regardless of the slope on the property?
7. To encourage construction that follows the natural slopes and blends with the natural contour of the
land, the Town's grading policy requires that grading levels and retaining walls do not generally
exceed 3 feet of cut or excavated earth and 4 feet of fill or deposited earth. Individual sites may
dictate a need to deviate from the criteria but would require Planning Commission and/or City Council
approval. Do you feel that the grading limitations are: (READ RESPONSES)
ropline Report Page 2 0/6 ApW 2007
Town of Los Alas Hills
In the last ten years, the average size of a typical new single-family house built in Los Altos Hills is 6,700
sq. ft. The Town has also seen the construction of some new single-family homes in the range of 10,000-
25,000 sq. ft. The homes are sometimes referred to as estate homes.
6. The maximum allowable size of a home is proportional to the size of the lot and the slope (for
example a 1 acre flat lot is allowed up to 6,000 sq. ft. of floor area and a 5 acre flat lot is allowed up to
30,000 sq. ft. of floor area). Should Los Altos Hills consider imposing a cap or a limit on the absolute
maximum size of a home? (GET YESMO ANSWER FIRST, THEN ASK IF YES) What should that
limit be?
9. Should the required setbacks be increased for estate homes (homes of 10,000+ square feet)?
10. If you support an increased setback, the increased setback restrictions should apply to homes over:
Currently, the Town's Site Development Review process is used to determine whether proposed
development conforms to Town policies. This process generally includes public hearings where
neighbors are allowed to comment on proposed projects.
11. Are you happy with the current development review process?
Topbee Report Page 3 or 6 Apnl 2007
The Planning Commission and/or Town staffs hould continue to conduct site
developinent review to determine compliance with Town development policies and
standards, and provide for public input. (This would continue the current procedure.)
The Town should establish an Architectural Review Board, made up of design
professionals, to conduct home design review, including provisions for public input.
The current system of discretionary review should be replaced by a process that simply
requires compliance with quantified development standards. Projects that do not meet
the standards would continue to be referred to the Planning Commission for review.
None of these
Don't know
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
DKINA
14A. Reduce the allowable height of property line
fences to below 6 feet.
14B. Limit perimeter fencing to a percentage of the
overall area of the parcel (for example, 75 percent of a
1 acre lot).
14C. Limit the fencing material to require open fences.
Town of Los Altos
15. Should the fence ordinance be amended to allow open deer fencing (meaning fences taller than 6
feet)?
The purpose of the Town's outdoor lighting criteria is to assure that the open and peaceful character of
the Town is maintained, that adequate lighting is provided for the enjoyment of outdoor use areas, and
that lighting does not intrude on the privacy of neighbors. The Town's outdoor lighting policy requires the
use of "the minimum wattage lights which will safely illuminate the area" and that outdoor light sources
"shall be shielded so as not to be directly visible from off-site."
16. Please tell me if you agree or disagree after each statement regarding outdoor lighting. Here's the
first/next one . (GET ANSWER, THEN ASK) Is that strongly (agree/disagree) or
somewhat (agree/disagree)?
Apn12007
Town of Los Altos Hills
Now, some background questions for comparison purposes.
A. In what yearwere you born? (USED TO CALCULATE RESPONDENT AGE)
B. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? (IF RESPONDENT
HESITATES, READ LIST. IF RESPONDENT STATES "ASIAN," ASK FOR CLARIFICATION)
C. Respondent's Gender:
Topline Report --- _-� - --Page 6o/6- -----------_- Apn12007
ATTACHMENT,3
Town of Los Altos Hills Community Preferences Survey
The Town of Los Altos Hills is in the process of updating the Land Use Element of our General Plan. As a part of this process all Town
households are invited to respond to this brief community preferences survey. The cover letter and General Plan Primerthat were
mailed along with this survey explain the role of the Land Use Element and why it is being updated.
TOWN CHARACTER
1. What is it about the physical character and appearance of the Town that you value? The following are some of the current features
of Los Altos Hills. Please circle the number that best represents how you feel about each of the following:
Criteria'
Not
Valuable
Somewhat
Valuable
Valuable
Vary No
Valuable No
a Agricultural uses such as orchards and vineyards.
1
2
3
1 5
b The presence of fans animals.
1
2
3
4 5
c Spacious lots with lame yards.
1
2
3
4 5
d) Narrow, winding roads not improved to typical city
standards.
1
2
3
4 5
e Roadside pathways instead of sidewalks.
1
2
3
4 5
1) Public off-road pathways that extend along side
and rear property lines.
1
1 2
3
4 5
at Abundant trees and other vegetation.
1
2
3
4 5
h Naturally occurring vegetation e.. oak trees).
1
2
3
4 5
Views of and from the hills.
1
2
3
1 4 5
A residential community with no commercial areas.
1
2
3
4 5
k Absence of streetlights.
1
2
3
4 5
I Absence of traffic signals.
1
2
3
4 5
m A minimum of 1 -acre for new lots
1
2
3
4 5
Other (please describe)
2. Would you prefer the Land Use Element of the General Plan to characterize the Town as (please check one):
Rural _ Semi Rural _ Suburban _ No Opinion
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REVIEW PROCESS
3. As the size of homes increase should they be set back farther from the roads and neighboring homes?
Yes _ No _ No Opinion
4. The owner of a one -acre, flat lot is currently allowed to build 6,000 square feet of "floor area° (i.e. building square footage), and
approximately 15,000 sq.ft. of "development area," which includes all building floor area andother paved surfaces (driveways,
pools, etc.). Allowable development Is then more restricted as the slope of the land increases. Required front yards are 40 feet,
and side and rear yards are 30 feet. The height of homes is restricted to 27 feet. Do you feel that each of these regulations are:
Development Regulation
- Too
Restrictl
About Right
Too
Pertpisalva
Dont Know
No OPlnioa
a Floor Area
1
2
3 1
4
5
b Develo menl Area
1
2
3
4
5
c Yard Setbacks
1
2
3
4
5
d Height
1
2
3
4
5
5. Should the allowed size of a house be reduced as lots become more steep?
_Yes _ Neutral _ No _ No Opinion
6. Do you consider the existing storm water drainage system to be adequate?
Yes _ Neutral _ No _ No Opinion
7. Currently, the Town's Site Development Review process is used to determine whether proposed development conforms to Town
policies. This process generally includes public hearings where neighbors are allowed to comment on proposed projects. Please
check the statement that best represents your view on this issue:
_ a) The Planning Commission ancVor Town staff should continue to conduct site development review to determine
compliance with Town development policies and standards, and provide for public input. (This would continue the
current procedure.)
b) The Town should establish an Architectural Review Board, made up of design professionals, to conduct home design
review, including provisions for public input.
c) The current system of discretionary review should be replaced by a process that simply requires compliance with
quantified development standards. Projects that do not meet the standards would continue to be referred to the Planning
Commission for review.
_tl) Other
8. The Town sometimes requires the dedication of conservation easements on private property with slopes of 30% or more at the
time of new development. This is Intended to protect areas of steep slopes, creeks, or significant stands of oak trees from
disturbance. Please check the statement that best represents your view of this issue:
a) Conservation easements should be required on private property to preserve natural features.
b) Conservation easements should not be required on private property.
c) Conservation easements should be expanded to provide for protection of wildlife corridors.
9. Regarding views:
a) Should new homes be restricted in height in order to preserve the views of neighbors?
Yes _ Neutral _ No _ No Opinion
b) Should new landscaping be restricted in height in order to preserve the views of neighbors?
Yes _ Neutral _ No _ No Opinion
10. Regarding outdoor lighting:
a) Outdoor lighting on private property should be regulated to control outdoor light impacts to surrounding properties and to
control the potential for "skyglowJ .
_ Strongly Disagree _Disagree _Neutral _Agree _Strongly Agree
b) Outdoor lighting should be allowed to accent buildings and landscaping, provided that glare on neighbors is minimized.
_Strongly Disagree _Disagree _Neutral _Agree _Strongly Agree
c) Outdoor lighting should not be regulated
Yes _ Neutral _ No
11. Should the town regulate the design, materials, or colors used for fences and walls?
Yes — Neutral — No — No Opinion
PATHWAYS
12. At the time of new development the Town sometimes requires the dedication and construction of pathways along interior property
boundaries when needed to link existing unconnected pathway segments. Please check the statement that best represents your
view of this issue:
a) OH -road pathway easement dedication and construction should be required when needed to link neighborhoods or other
pathways.
_b) OH -road pathway easement dedication and construction should not be required.
_ c) OR -road pathway easement dedication and construction should only occur on a voluntary basis.
FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
13, Facilities: Within the resources available to the
Town, how important is it for the Town to pmvitle
the following new oradditional facilNes7 s
Not
Important
Somewhat
fmportant
Very
Important
Important
`Very
Important
- No
Opinion
a) Day care center or facility for children.
1
2
3 4
4
5
b) Day care center or facility for seniors.
1
2
3 4
4
5
c) Multi-purpose center for recreational programs and
meetings.
1
2
3 4
3
5
d) Additional open space preserves.
1
2
3 4
2
5
e) Additional public parks.
1
2
3 4
1
5
Q New picnic areas in public parks.
1
2
3 4
0 Sponsor recreational programs for teenagers.
5
g) New playfields in public parks.
1
2
3 4
5
5
h) Street lighting.
1
2
3 4
5
h) Sponsor televised City Council hearings
1
2
Other (please describe):
14. Programs:, :WM1hin the fmaricial resources avail to
the Town, how im odantls d for the own'to sponsor
P
the followin new.ocaddHlonal ro rams?n�--. �.
a) Develop a program to encourage native or water-
conserving landscaping.
; Not
=tmportent-
Somewhat
Important`
'
Impormnt
`Very
Important
J No
.Opinion.:
1
2
3
4
5
b) Develop a program to improve pathway maintenance.
1
2
3
4
5
c) Develop a program to identify and protect wildlife
habitat.
1
2
3
4
5
d) Sponsor community events for all residents.
1
2
3
4
5
e) Sponsor recreational programs for children.
1
2
3
4
5
0 Sponsor recreational programs for teenagers.
1
2
3
4
5
g) Sponsor recreational programs for seniors.
1
2
3
4
5
h) Sponsor televised City Council hearings
1
2
3
4
5
i) Sponsor video coverage of Council hearings on the
intemet.
1
2
3
4
5
j) Underground public utility service lines
1
2
3
4
5
k) Sponsor a Town -wide stormwater drainage master plan
1
2
3
4
5
Other (please describe):
We understand that the following questions are personal. However, these will help determine if the people
who respond to the survey represent a cross section of the Town's population. Because the survey is
anonymous, this Information will only be presented in an aggregate form. Please return your survey, even
if you choose not to answer some of these questions.
15. How many years have you lived in Los Altos Hills?
years.
16. Is there a second dwelling unit (rental, guest house, or domestic's quarters) on your property?
Yes _ No
17. Have you been through the Los Altos Hills site development review process?
_Yes —No
18. What is your age? Please circle one.
1) 18-24 4) 45-54 7) over 75
2) 25-34 5) 55-64
3) 35-44 6) 65-74
19. In what area of the Cily do you live?
_ East of 1-280
-West of 1-280
20. Do you own or rent your home?
Own Rent
Thank you for completing the survey. Please return It to the Town of Los Altos Hills in the enclosed envelope by March 16, 2001.
O
3
"
D
p
3 D
<
s
o
J a£
n"
'Z
N
n
D
9:m
D
f. Z
D
p
Z
M
< m
�.
O
J
=•
Q
N=
N
N
N
w jit
N
»
Np
^
ry
N n
»
N n
N
ry
y
a o
o
N
N
»
i
Rk
N
3
d
f,
o
N
v
J
d
m
=
3
3
a z
n o
m
m
of
N
O
N
O
p
p
m
o
d
o
C
d
N
Ol
C p
N
o
m
_ s
m y
m
J
t0
Co
4)
A
A
A
W
N
tT
N
tP
A
J
lD
t0
O
m
A
(T
W
V
tT
N
Q
N
C
t0
ut
A
J
CD
W
m
W
(T
N
V
N
IT
N�
N
�
t0
IT
tO
J
IJ
V
W
W
W
N
V
A
A
�
tp
po
lT
O
V
A
(n
A
W
W
Q.2
N
Z
O
0
J
r
N
N
N
O_
,ZI
N
�
N
N
N
A
N pC
W
W
N
W
W
W
W
N
W
N
CO
N
tO
Vt
V
W
J
N
�
tit
OI
W
N
j N 0-Z
N O �
N
N
Tmr�
�
m
o
N
3
S o
N
R
❑
o
c
m
c
m
p
r
3
'm
—
N d
a
�
o
m
;
c
—
o
c
�
�
Tmr�
�
m
o
�.T a
m �
S o
�
n
r
—
N d
.. n
o
�
N
N
W
Co
A
�
tll
o
W
W
=
=
N
r
N
u,
3
o
m
(p
V
=
o -
C
e
D'
d
Z
O
_
m
�
a
S
0
O
p
e
�
A
m
N
O
O
N
0 O
e
m
N
3 m u
0.
m
m
N S N
0
v
neo
E;0
l
o n 3
4
m
N
(D N 7
S O
O O (p
3 m
3
3
�
®
❑
w
e
m
N
m
N
A
V
0
m
O
O ro
N
Q
0
a
o
J
�
O
J
N
3 m u
0.
m
m
N S N
0
v
neo
E;0
o n 3
m
N
(D N 7
S O
O O (p
3 m
N o
3
�
m
<
w
e
m
N
m
N
A
V
0
m
O
Z
0
V
o
�
O
N
W
e
N
_O
S
�
N
0
0 0
o
u
o m
o
�
N
♦ew�P Nlu dPupwv��
V�cnggmP NRupuv
0
MumW d@Resp@ometQ
�RY3YYfYfYf
al Faarav
$ H S E E $
�) Flar Rrn
e) Flow Pru
3
e�
n'"r�°e'"°`�
s
Ani
a
�ij
3
QI NWp
ej nm
m
's
SerorJw
m X.a+
O 0 • • ❑
2p O y D9-1
0 3 n ��g
� � � �F
-I D
S 8
A S 9
� A
3
V�cnggmP NRupuv
MumW d@Resp@ometQ
�RY3YYfYfYf
$ H S E E $
�) Flar Rrn
e) Flow Pru
q O�..Iw�mau
e) o...w�.m nr..
o�v.a s.m.a.
�
c) vwa 9.m.w
3
QI NWp
m
's
4
Q� XtlpM
O 0 • • ❑
2p O y D9-1
0 3 n ��g
� � � �F
iR
w
V�cnggmP NRupuv
�RY3YYfYfYf
�) Flar Rrn
q O�..Iw�mau
3
o�v.a s.m.a.
T
QI NWp
m
's
❑a�no
`g
€8g"'g
°�'��m
�`E n�
��o
Cc
kil
}�\
�
7
\(
(\
\°(`
§�
}�\
\(
(\
§�
4 yy
vf�
ny•
� o
r i
a:rd, �'�{II tri I" giIIIMv .
DO
r!
3
� y o
J = C
m
N O
m �
0 0
fA
m
O C_ N
a y
J
O
m
vf�
ny•
� o
c
m n.�
� y o
J = C
N O
m �
m
fA
m
m
O %
m N
b
W
�g
j
W
e
V
N
z
�
�
m
V
C
W
Z
W
N W
e
N
O
Z
_
O
W
�
N
o
�
�
�
0
0
m
N
O
N
0 p
o
m
�
N
0M
|k%(
7-m
,# m
_
\ ! !
So -o
`!'!•,!`!!
\ \\agoS
7-m
�wahpb!
So -o
`!'!•,!`!!
\ \\agoS
�RRl�z
To
{
5o.6
�|
-go 9-Z
:!!!!!!!;!|!
\
;�
�y
!!}%[<\!(0
!R,};l;;!!
|7}§�/\!]<no
M(
30
7
.
o
co
M
w
0
10
,
-
!f}�)
_f(\
Eƒ\[4[\
MM
}
(i[i
~
&&
(!
0
Ems!
f�!
(\})2
o®(
}�[
!-�
=(D
j!()
_;
2k]
m�|C
2/}
}(
,<
!$§®
CDCD
)«■[
\/(
!!}%[<\!(0
!R,};l;;!!
|7}§�/\!]<no
30
o
2_!!!-;
-
!f}�)
MM
}
(\})2
j!()
w
m�|C
!$§®
)«■[
\/(
a
B!x
$«oi[
0
\<
\�
0
O y O
m
m n
Q�0
O O d
N N �
ry N d
z
C
m
m m
J
<
N
N
0
N
� �
O
p
d
< N
N
N
N
N O (/J
_ S
N � O
O S C
ry
N
b �
F
� C
�
V
{
V
O
(O
�
N
e
O O �
Z
rn
+
m
m
c
N
e
A
d
A
V
m
a
V
�
N
o
Z
z
O
Vt
V
a
0
w
3
+
W
0
O
0
,ZI
Z
N
o
p
u
o
a
�
S
0
N
'a3 m
N N ...
N N �
ry N d
N
N
fA
N ^
C
O
<
ry
N
S
� O O
�
� C
O J
O O �
N �
JmF
V
m
{
V
�
N
o
N
z
o
w
o
w
Z
+
W
p
O
0
Z
o
p
u
m
a
o
S
0
3
N
O
+
a0 O
o
a
�St
a?
N
P
AM
w
3
c
m m
0o
O
E
v
d
S
—
0
B
�®
;\EB:
«�
\\�\\
f
\5 4�
In -11
$\
\
}�
\�
B
�®
;\EB:
\\�\\
\5 4�
}�
\�
0
.
\\\\
wo
m
Vill
|(
}
\�
om
/\
tr
-2;0'
CID
�M
(�
}}
(
k\
�
k�
0
.
\\\\
m
Vill
om
tr
-2;0'
CID
�M
(�
}}
0
\\\\
om
as
(�
}}
k�
06
�z
iC a
-it r r
0
>z=
UF
t!
o
N
C
d
� 6 �
N �
'
N
N? �
3 °c
nm_ a
f m T
n
N
m
N
b
4Ni
O
W
C (p
N
_
�
6 N
O
tit
m
N
4f
a
O
N
z
o
d
w
w
O
N
O
0
Z
O
O
A
W
o
D
0
,Z1
N
N
p
0 0
O
w
j SI
e
N
N
OD . 0 m as—
{§§ƒ!/I*
�
IT��\
§(&|%Ek]}
)$m!m0M5,0
!
-
!
\
§J/}\/{
E
Ou
'
arm
0
}\}ff
#!
�}\
k(\
/(k(\
:((\
_2E=0M
0§/
)§/
\k
kk®(
�
/,&;
;
\
0 In
($3
(§
:§!§;
0
3
�([E
CD
!
\
a
/
q
OD . 0 m as—
{§§ƒ!/I*
§(&|%Ek]}
)$m!m0M5,0
!
-
!
\
§J/}\/{
}\}ff
#!
�}\
\\
\k
0 In
:§!§;
�([E
#[R(
{�
0
a
N
m
m
a
a
Om
ndp
Fom�l
yc
`G
J Q d
o
o
d
y
a
O
Q N
d
d
O F A
n
CL
V
N
b d
J
L
J
J<
b
yj
N
d
H
J
N
0
O
n
n f S
v
a
S
a
U
N
6a J
d
C
d
d
d N
O <, S _,
l
a
n
m
3
d S 3 m
G
d
V
A
A
W
i
p
V
EZ
A
O
d
W O
W
W
N
N
W
N
3
Q
�
d d
C
d
N
N
W
V
N
(Ali
Of
W
01
Q
d
C
d_
N
N
O
OWi
O
O
A
A
O d
d
Z
0
N
r
W
N
OJ
b
N
V
a
O
J
d
N
zz
01
r
Od
W
N N
r
W
A
(O
W
d
N
<
N d
41
O
O
W
J
O
W
U
j d OZ
N
|�
`
o !
§I ;!
p WO W m N O W
O r O N O N
\{\
7¢7E;
)/72i
�`�\\
09s
\(
/
(*
\�
\�
i"19dalia �lJjj ;', v—
'v
W
3
m
®11®
■ ® ® ■
O
O)
N A W N
N NO� N N O)
iU1
A
A A A A
J
A
N
.r
.:
) � y
�
�
-
��
�
7
)
ƒ
Lk�
}k
m
N
3
N
0
❑®
�f
0
�,
N
O
O
0
0
c
F
m
m
c
�
�
�
Q
o
o_
�
m
�
N
N
y
O
C
S
O
3
J
O
W
N
$.
o
�
�
o
A
�
m
m
o
O
+
y
�
�
� Oe�
W
O
m
� Y1
e
_
�
N
ATiAC: wvitCV ,
April 18, 2007
To: Debbie Pedro, Los Altos Hills Town Planner Director
From: Sean Bridge, Godbe Research
Re: Quality Control Procedures
Hello Debbie:
Los Altos Hills continues to be one of the most passionate and educated communities
we poll within the Bay Area. From our past experience with two undergrounding
surveys as well as an educational study regarding the charter school issue, the
feedback received on our most recent study, was not a surprise. Residents demand
the best from their council, and the contractors the Town employs.
It is healthy to hear complaints, and residents challenging the validity of results. It
means we have done our job in tackling important and sometimes sensitive issues
within the community.
7i
Here are our official quality control procedures:
Godbe Research practices several steps to ensure quality and validity in public
6008E RESEARCH opinion studies.First, the questionnaire is reviewed by the data collection facility for
Om mwRm any ambiguous questions, phrases, or words. Concerns are brought back to the
Client for potential rewording for clarify and better understanding.
The second quality assurencelcontrol measure includes a read -through of the
questionnaire whereby a team of interviewers individually read aloud the survey,
question by question with a supervisor and a representative from Godbe Research
listening and critiquing pronunciation, tone, and delivery. The process takes an hour
to perform and helps familiarize the interviewers with the nature of the survey.
Third, a pretest is conducted on the first night of calling. This involves completing a
small number of interviews (10 to 20) to assess the effectiveness of the survey
instrument and identify any particular problem spots. After the pre-test, Godbe
Research obtains any feedback from the project supervisor and also looks at two key
indicators to ensure quality: the rate of cooperation with respondents, and second, the
'donY know'response to specific questions. The cooperation rate is calculated by
taking the number of completed interviews and dividing that by the total number of
times an eligible respondent was obtained on the line. Godbe Research also
examines the 'donY know' msponse to certain key questions. It is typical to see a
'donY know'rosponse of between 5 and 12 percent with certain questions.
Page 1 of 2
The final quality assurancelcontrol measure comes from any feedback received from
the community in which we are polling. Any instances in which words are
mispronounced or questions not property asked, Godbe does it's best in identifying
the specific interviewer in question. If a problem is determined to be with an individual
interviewer, all interviews conducted by that person are then replaced by another
(using standard sample -replacement protocols) and he or she no longer makes calls
on the project.
In summary, we apologize for any bad experiences regarding our interviewers.
Mispronunciations can and do happen, we can only hope to minimize these
occurrences. In the event that an interviewer mispronounces a word, one of two
things typically happens. One, the respondent corrects or clarifies the word and the
question is accurately answered, or two, the respondent replies "don't know."
In terms of our interviewers not knowing enough about the subject matter, they
shouldn't. We were contracted to administer a quantitative study, not a qualitative
executive interview. Our interviewers read the questions word for word and were
instructed not to provide any additional information to ensure the integrity of results.
eoose RESEARCH We stand by the results of the survey. We knew ahead of time that the subject matter
sB1 1.1pM was very complex. However, we were pleasantly surprised to see the proportion of
"don't know" responses very low. It sent a strong signal that the majority of residents
in the Town of Los Altos Hills understood the issues and provided their honest
opinions regarding housing regulations.
Sean Bridge
Director of Research
Godbe Research
Page 2 of 2