Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1a_Additional Materials Received_Mosher_Draft Minutes of August 12, 2015 BVAC - September 9, 2015 Item Nos. 1 and 2: Additional Materials Received Comments on September 9, 2015, BVAC Agenda Items The following comments on the Balboa Village Advisory Committee's agenda items are submitted by: Jim Mosher(iimmosher(cD-yahoo.com) , 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. MINUTES OF JULY 8, 2015 AND AUGUST 12, 2015 The following minor corrections are suggested to the August 12th draft minutes: 1. Page 2, Item 3, paragraph 4: "Marianne 'ter Z ppâ–șasked regarding when opportunities to vote on the two alternatives were provided." 2. Page 3, paragraph 2: "Marianne Z4ppy Zippi expressed concerns that not all residents voted." 3. Page 3, paragraph 5: "Les-lie Lesley Miller noted that the objective is to get rid of the trash, ..." 4. Page 3, last paragraph: "In response to an inquiry by Marianne Zippy Z ppt, Principal Planner Campbell addressed implementation of Phase 2 and Coastal Commission review." 5. Page 4, paragraph 2: "Community Development Director Kimberly Brandt noted that staff did not want to change the principals principles set forward in the survey to avoid compromising the results." 6. Page 4, paragraph 3: "Leslie Lesley Miller suggested developing an ordinance to require all employees and fishermen to park off the Peninsula." 7. Page 4, paragraph 4: "Marianne 'p Z ppi suggested that, since there is so much opposition to the program, the City should focus, first, on a shuttle program." 8. Page 4, first action: "The motion failed(2-1-9 2-1-1-3 , with Council Member Petros and Mayor Pro Tem Dixon voting in support, Committee Member Rodheim voting in opposition, and Committee Member Dove abstaining." [note: I am not aware of the rule of parliamentary procedure that causes a majority approval to fail. Is the idea that the total number of non-abstentions was less than a quorum?] 9. Page 4, second action: "Council Member Pe tre Petros moved to continue this item to the next BVAC meeting for consideration when additional members of the Committee will be present." 10. Page 5, paragraph 3 from end: "Marianne Zppy Zippi commented on space for equipment for beach goers and space for luggage for users of Catalina Flyer." BVAC - September 9, 2015 Item Nos. 1 and 2: Additional Materials Received Comments on September 9, 2015, BVAC Agenda Items - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 Item 2. RP3 BOUNDARY CLARIFICATION Although this item is perhaps only a clarification of the vote taken at BVAC's July meeting, a key factor in whether the City Council will ultimately accept BVAC's recommendation is whether they have confidence there is adequate support for an RP3 program on the streets where it would be implemented. Unfortunately, due to the practical limitations of surveys the level of support has to be gauged based on an incomplete sample of the residents, and it would appear on many streets without a majority of residents having provided a positive response. This raises the question of whether the Council can be confident a complete sampling would have yielded the required 50% minimum support. On August 24`" I submitted to Principal Planner Jim Campbell the suggestions archived at the following web address which could be used to answer that question in a scientific way: http://1 drv.ms/1 MIFTiw The suggestions provided include a software tool for assessing the confidence achievable with an incomplete sample, a "ReadMe" memo explaining the tool and the problem it addresses, and data regarding the number of people reporting residence in each census block in the proposed area as listed in the 2010 federal census. Using these items, the confidence with which majority support by residents has been demonstrated could be assessed based on the number of responses received from residents compared to the reported number of residents. Since true and meaningful majorities were probably not achieved on most blocks, I believe this would be a substantial improvement over simply coloring the map based on greater or less than 50% in favor, or a tie, in the limited sample returned (which I believe erroneously, in view of the Code, includes absentee landlords as well as residents) and I hope BVAC will consider using these suggestions. As noted in the memo, the software tool assumes the unsampled population has the same propensities as the people who returned ballots. However, as it also notes, there is some evidence that support for an RP3 is less strong among those who failed to respond, which, if true, would cause the tool to overestimate the confidence with which majority support has been demonstrated, as does the present simple coloring of the map (the evidence is an apparent decline in the percentage in favor as staff obtains more complete and more focused results). In addition, as explained in the memo, in researching this I noticed the Municipal Code Section 12.68.020 criteria to approve an RP3 include not just the requirement that there be a minimum of majority support by"adjacent residents," but also that the users who would be banned by the program are depriving residents of access to a majority of the on-street parking. I do not recall having seen this aspect of the criteria addressed or evaluated in any depth. While I find it quite possible that non-residents make overnight parking in the proposed RP3 area more difficult than it would be without them, I find it difficult to believe that during the overnight hours, especially in the areas farthest from Balboa Village, the people who would be excluded by the RP3 are currently occupying a majority of the on-street parking spaces.