ZAPR meeting minutes 5/12

[Honeysuckle Landscape & Design]

            Minutes of ZAPR Meeting-  Saturday May 12,2007

 

-9 committee members present

-Survey Committee Report- Deb Macartney stated that 300+ completed surveys were received,

 20%  completed online, 80% by mail

-acronyms used in the survey will be spelled out in the final report

-Deb reviewed the survey results, and the group suggested ways to clarify several troublesome or    

 ambiguous questions.  

-Jake brake question results are to be reconfigured.

 

-Lisa Phipps stated in reference to a community wide design guideline question that cities can impose requirements but counties can not because of the divergence in the way various communities in a county choose to live.

 

-The group discussed the next steps and agreed that there was too much material to digest and analyze in order to meet Jud's recommended August deadline.  Jud said that he put forth that deadline as a device to keep people moving on the project.  He and several others suggested that it was more important to do the project right and to make sure we get as much feedback from as many Oceansiders as possible than to meet any deadline.  All present agreed thaat the results should be made available to the entire population surveyed.  While  Oceansiders are examining the results on line, the ZAPR subcommittees will study the results  and suggest recommendations for additions or changes to Oceansides community plan.  We discussed how we might give and receive feedback from the entire population surveyed on any recommendations made my the ZAPR subcommittees or by those attending the ONA meeting in which the survey results are discussed.  One idea floated was to select those items on which there was a clear divergence of opinion (a slight majority felt strongly one way anad a sizable minority felt strongly the opposite was- a 60% majority Strongly Agree and a 30% minority Strongly Disagree, for example) and to forward only these items to the surveyed population for comment.  The idea is to be as open and as inclusive as possible without delaying the project indefinitely or increasing our costs in time and money unreasonably.

 

-Kris and Richard will rank and categorize text comments on the survey this Wednesday evening

-Subcommittees will meet in the next couple of weeks to review and analyze the survey results.

They will:    1. rank results in order of importance

                    2. single out majority approved questions as potential ordinance statements

                    3. review text comments in reference to questions

                    4. categorize other questions important to community that received a mixed(non-majority)

                        response into a category for future discussion

 

-minutes takers- Kris/Richard

[Deborah Bryant]

Thanks Kris for the notes.

Question to Kris/Richard:  On #1." Rank results in order of importance"; what is the criteria for ranking?

Also add I promised to post a copy of the powerpoint used for discussion on the web; should be able to get it up before tomorrow morning and will let the group know when posted.

Deb

[Honeysuckle Landscape & Design]

Ranking  results in order of importance would be by percent.  Open to discussion.    Kris

[Richard Powers]

Deb,

    I believe item #1 should read: Rank in order of consensus. Then we can discuss what other criteria might be used to establish importance besides consensus. The anchor issue is a topic of considerable importance to the community but one in which the community disagrees about what to do. Consensus does not correlate with importance here.

Richard

[Deborah Macartney]

RIchard and Kris,

Let me throw out an idea I did not get to cover in our meeting.  Seems to me it might be helpful if committee separate out some of the concepts as they go through into three categories.

1) Issues that look like they can be addressed by the addition, creation, or enforcement of Ordinances (i.e. grating, lighting)

2) Issues that are of concern to the community that are not addressed necessarily by ordinance but require further brainstorming (i.e. , interest in getting involved in creating green-space, polarization  on boycott signs)

3) A Bright Ideas list; things people are interested in seeing happen that are not today, but could be in the future (i.e. suggestions for winter events, concerts, etc)

All three could go into the community vision and plan as well as the survey overview document.

Number one would be the target for recommendations for the Ordinance review.

Numbers 2 and 3 could go back out as follow-up work that would move out of the ZAPR committee, inviting others to help shape up etc.

For your consideration, just reminding myself of the charter of our committee (Zone and Plan Review), but not wanting to loose the value of information shared by survey respondents.

Deb