Survey Deadline Re-Opened
Deb Macartney
supplemental survey mailing going out today to some folks living on
the edge....of the Oceanisde community boundry that is, who should
have been included in the original mailing. I submitted the piece
below to the Headlight Herald for inclusion in this week's Fencepost.
In addition to what may come back from the folks on Netarts Water
rolls, we had another several dozen completed surveys dribble in since
our May 9 cut-off, so we're using this as an opportunity to get all
these surveys input. Deb
"If you have not completed the Oceanside Community Survey you will
want to take note; a small section of Oceanside was unintentionally
left out of the recently completed (but now not-quite-completed)
community survey and has now been identified. Approximately 100
residences were missed which are inside the Oceanside Community
boundary, but not served by the Oceanside Water District. The water
district list had been used to narrow down the county tax roll records
for the original survey mailing lists. A supplemental survey mailing
will go out to those home owners of record on Monday, June 18 with a
deadline of July 16. This also presents a second opportunity for
procrastinators to mail in, or most encouraged, to complete the survey
online.
The Oceanside Neighborhood Association (ONA) is conducting the
community survey and emphasizes the importance of including everyone
that lives full time or part, owns property or owns/operates a
business in Oceanside to participate. Over 300 surveys have been
completed to date. The survey process will close on the revised date
of July 16. The ONA hopes to share the results at the August 4, 2007
ONA meeting. Much of the information provided by the community will be
used to make recommendations for any changes or additions to the
Oceanside Community Plan and/or Oceanside Ordinances. For more
information you may contact ONA president Judson Randall at (503)
842-7589. You may also visit the ONA web site at www.oceansidefriends.org
to see the results of prior years surveys as well as current Oceanside
Ordinances"
Mary B. Flock
When I completed survey Q18 regarding reducing the 35 foot-height maximum
for non-ocean frontage, I assumed that it referred only to Residential
because Commercial questions were concentrated in Q8-Q10 and Q18 didn’t
specifically mention Commercial. Other people may have assumed that as well.
Results for Q18 are divided evenly between Yes and No with 16% undecided.
Even if most people assumed that Q18 referred to both Commercial and
Residential, we don’t know how the Community feels about reducing building
heights specifically in the Commercial zone.
Automatically calculated %’s on Q10 regarding additional small businesses
are confusing because %’s on any Check all that apply-questions are based on
# of Checked boxes not # of Surveys received. Based on # of Checked boxes,
11% indicated “no new business”, but based on # of Surveys received, 25%
indicated “no new business” and of the 60 people who checked “Other”, 18
specifically indicated “no new business”. The 25% “no new business” on Q10
conflicts with Q16 where 49% indicated Oceanside should not have more
commercial services for residents. I’m one of the people who gave
conflicting answers on these 2 questions, because I would like some new
business (particularly a bakery or a brew pub), but I worry about where and
how this would be done.
My feelings about reducing Commercial building height have less to do with
view obstruction than wanting to preserve the village atmosphere by keeping
structures in scale. Also smaller businesses would be more likely to meet
existing off-street parking requirements. Without reducing building height
and/or getting rid of averaging, additional Commercial structures way in
excess of 35 feet can be built.
Mary
PS-There are duplicate control #s in the computerized results because
sometimes the on-line system kicked the user out before completing the
survey or the user quit and returned later to complete the survey. You can
see Raw Data with and without duplicates in the Raw Data file I sent you a
while back.