Contamination from HAFB, Our Plumes & Development: How does it impact us?

I attended the Hill Air Force Base RAB (restoration advisory board) meeting on Thursday October 24th.   This is a comprising of many different board members including city council members from neighboring cities, representatives from the EPA and UDEQ,  community representatives, and other entities.  Here is the agenda for this meeting.  

The contamination in our city is something I have been trying to understand better.  I am no expert in it.  I am still learning and I don't have all the answers.  However,  I have been asking a lot of people a lot of questions, and I can say I have a better idea of what is going on than I did a few months ago.  I am hoping sharing what I learned can help you better understand as well, and together we can all be better informed and thus better involved.  These are just the answers I have received from some of my questions.  

Okay so for starters: Where did the contamination come from?  Most of the contaminants happened before the 70's when the base would dispose of chemicals by burying it in the lands.  Most of these dumping sites were on the slopes of the base's boundaries, and over time that contamination spread.  There are several "plumes" around the base's boundaries; Layton, Clearfield, Sunset, South Weber and Riverdale are all just some of the community's that have plumes.  South Weber has three, though one, OU4 is technically located mostly in Riverdale.  You can see these plumes on our sensitive land maps in yellow.  OU2 sits above 475 E and OU1 is located near where the proposed Knoll's development will be.   

How do they determine the size of a plume?

This has been a huge question of mine.  I've been told many things when I ask this question.  I learned from this RAB meeting that HAFB has wells all over these communities.  These wells monitor the ground water and look for contaminants, specifically TCE and recently newly founded Benzine.  TCE is a potential carcinogen.  The Base was charged with cleaning up the contaminant from groundwater following Hill's designation as a Superfund site in 1987.  It remains on the U.S. EPA's National Priority List.  They use these wells to determine the boundary of the plumes.  Some wells have had clean reports for a significant amount of time so the boundary is re-adjusted.  When this happens, the plume is considered to be "shrinking."  Other plumes haven't moved at all due to complexities in the soil making mitigation difficult to happen.   No contaminants have ever been found in our drinking water. 

How does mitigation/clean up happen?

The contaminants are similar to radon.  They are dispersed when they hit oxygen.  That means when they come to the surface, they are able to be broken up and distributed to the atmosphere in a way that is not hurtful to humans or animals.  However, if it never hits oxygen, it will stay there for a great deal of time before it is naturally broken down.   The efforts of contractors, hired by the base to do the cleanup/mitigation, have yielded varying results as they have used different methods of cleanup.   The latest contractors used a method of vegetable oil and what they called "bugs", microbes that are injected down into the plumes.  These bugs consume the contamination and break it down.  At some of these sites, this process worked very well.  At others, not so much.  This was thought to be from the amount of clay making it difficult for the bugs to "travel" through the soil and consume the contaminants.

Are their homes threatened by the contamination?

While other areas like Layton and Clearfield have 500-600 homes that they feel would need a vapor system to address these contaminants leaking into their homes (similar to how radon happens), according to HAFB South Weber doesn't have very many homes that have been built in the plumes boundaries.  The first time this will happen is with the Knoll's property, which is a cause for concern and why HAFB recommended those homes have a vapor intrusion system installed.  According to the Base, if you have a home they recommend to have air testing done, you should have been contacted by the Base via door to door visits or through a mailer.   However, if you are concerned about it, the Base will come do an air sample in your home.  

What's Next?

 The Base is getting ready to renew a new 8 year contract with contractors to continue to work on cleanup on these plumes.  These new methods may be different than what the current contractors have been doing, or they could continue with the new ways.  The RAB meets 4 times a year and is a public meeting.  Currently Blair Halverson is our city council member who is a member of the RAB.  If you would like to be more involved, he is who you should talk too.  Because of the nature of the election, things may change after new seats are taken up in January so stay tuned to the city's website to see if the council members for the RAB changes.

The news actually did a short segment of this meeting.  I will attach it here for you to view.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.  I can't promise you I will know the answer, but I will do my best to find out for you.  One thing I have learned about this contamination is there are polar opposite views, it can be a very controversial conversation.  Sometimes it is hard to know where the truth actually lies.  However, the more I study, the better of an idea I think I am getting of it.  Additionally, HAFB has come and done presentations to our city a few times.

For more information on groundwater monitoring and air sampling:
https://www.hill.af.mil/IAP/fbclid/IwAR1HD7pozrKZQI0OOPuqwRiU_YcxcybNcbZZU7hym4_KwuRskBPz0a5EsJw/

HAFB Presentation to city council February 12th, 2019:

 http://southwebercity.com/file/2016/11/02-12-19-CC-Meeting-Minutes.pdf  

Fox 13 News segment: 

https://fox13now.com/2019/10/24/push-to-sample-air-in-homes-above-chemical-plume/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_content=5db290c94c15b8000148caba&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2g4YqXkpTj65nv3KSKMx_NvdegxVwH-q1T68IixzIvHEmuCVr3sbENePE

Recap! Planning Commission Special Meeting

10.23.18 Special Planning Commission Meeting

This meeting was for the short term rental that has received many complaints as well as getting three strikes after receiving their permit in August.

City Code Enforcer Chris Tremea did an awesome job documenting to the short term rental's representation as well as the planning commission the ongoing problems and complaints this rental unit has consistently had.  He made it very clear he wanted this business to succeed, but it was clear the owner was not showing any results and at times was downright deceitful.  Sergeant Pope was also there and documented all the visits the Davis County Sheriff's has made to this property, the most notable being on October 12th where 10 officers and a canine were called to the property and 21 citations were issued, many for underage drinking.  There was public comment documenting more concerns and another short term rental owner who is playing by the rules and hope this one property won't be generalized to all short term rentals.

A motion was made to revoke the license for this short term property and carried.  What this means is if the property owner continues to rent it out it will fall under civil dispute.  Staff was also directed to contact the websites the property is listed on and inform those companies that this property license has been revoked and no further rentals should take place. 

There were about 30 people who came tonight and I am very happy to see the residents supporting each other.  Chris Tremea and Sargent Pope both expressed their thanks to the community for their patience and their continual involvement.  Commissioner Wes Johnson and Tim Grubb thanked those who came to the meeting last night, Rob Osborne thanked the citizens who came out to support his meeting tonight.  It has been a nightmare for those neighboring residents.  Thank you to the Planning Commission for all their work and time!

Recap! Planning Commission & City Council Joint Meeting: General Plan

Planning Commission/City Council Joint Meeting Recap!

This was the first meeting for our general plan.  After receiving all the citizens input after 2 open houses and online and written surveys, these two entities joined together to discuss the changes that will need to be made.

Having this meeting at Highmark was really nice.  We were able to hear much better than at the FAC and able to see.  The bleachers were a little hard after 4 hours, but we had pizza and snacks for all so that was a bonus!  We had over 100 people who showed up and many stayed for the whole portion.  

As usual, I wrote a lot of notes and don't know how to slim it down.  The process of this meeting was really to go through it section by section just like the survey.  City Manager Dave Larsen would talk about prominent things in each section, review what most public comment mentioned/discussed and then allowed the PC/CC to make comments/feedback.  I will try to give a brief feedback to each section.  

Intro: It was decided that being a gateway to recreation wasn't as clearly defined and we could do better.  Discussion about what kinds of commercial could/should be added and where took place.  They also talked about how this discussion of types of commercial has been talked about and goals have been set but no plan was made - how do we put that plan into action?  Talk about downsizing the allowable units per acre, as well as possibly keeping larger lots more prominent on the plan and becoming known for the community that only does larger lots happened. 

Citizen Involvement:  Many of the CC/PC commended the amazing public involvement and gave thanks to those who have been working hard to get the word out.  A discussion on how the city can be better at that and the potential (and how to's) of adding a citizen's committee of some sorts took place.   Other ways currently underway was updates to the city website, email lists and looking into live streaming meetings.  

Moderate Income Housing: The PC/CC reviewed the most selected options of Senate Bill 34 according to the survey.  All were in agreement of choosing the ones that had the least amount of impact and how to implement them into our city.  In the end, they whittled the choices down to Option L- preserving existing MIH (not tearing down buildings that currently serve for MIH which is mostly the apartments), Option B - facilitate infrastructure for growth (updates to our sewer, west end reservoir and even water lines like recently discussed would apply) and Option U which was submitting for grants for numerous projects (many of which we have already applied for).  Just to be clear, the decision on these options was not made as it was a work meeting only.  However more than likely these will be the options they will submit to the state. 

Existing Environment: Much of this focus was on our sensitive lands.  The fact that we have numerous studies showing the concerns of our slopes was discussed and if it could be added that no building or development on our slopes could be added to the general plan.  Other hazards/concerns were also discussed and thought about being added as well including wetlands, easements, landslides, fire, wind and railroads.  Staff also said they suggested to look into and re-evaluate our maximum buildout acreage and population numbers.  

Land Use:  Only the first little part of land use was discussed which happened to be the 5 proposed High Density Housing zones.  51% of the surveys responded to this question that none of these properties should be HDH.  A lot of talk about changing our codes and our units/acre was discussed.  A new moderate and patio home zone as well as dropping our highest units per acre, currently at 13, down to 8 was also suggested.  This was where the meeting ended.  Staff will look into further defining these new zones and logistics.  

The next meeting for this will probably be November 12th, also held at Highmark.  Stay tuned for more details on that.  This will be a bit of process as there is so many things to look at and discuss.  I just want to let you all know all the work and time that everyone put into doing the survey was worth it!! Many, many times tonight our officials referred back to what the citizens want and the comments that were submitted.  The process is working!  I would just like to thank all our officials once again for all the hard work and time they put into our beautiful city and thank you all here for betting involved and staying involved! 

#SWmorethan20

General Plan Survey Results

The survey results are in!  We got 489 survey's in from public comment.  That is so awesome.  I am looking forward to tomorrow night's meeting where we will see for the first time our planning commission and city council officials review and make changes to our general plan.   Here are some results of the survey.  If you would like to see the entire results, click here.

I wasn't able to get all the breakdown of this question into one frame, but to summarize the second to the left is option B - working on infrastructure in the city (the updates to the sewer on the east end would qualify here),  the next highest column in orange is option E which is to add accessory dwelling (mother in law apartments and basement rentals), the top blue column was to preserve existing MIH mandates and the final highest in green on the right is option U which is applying for grants - some of which we have already done so. 

Our meeting tomorrow night will take place at HighMark at 6:00.  Hope to see you there!

Q&A: SWCU Facebook Group & Me, Development and HDH, South Bench Drive and Others

I have loved how much public involvement there has been of late and how engaged South Weber citizens are.  I am glad to get many questions - it means people are doing their due diligence in learning more about the candidates before they vote.  I am happy to answer some questions that come up often.

1.  Are you the face of the South Weber United Facebook Group? Did they ask you to be a candidate?

The South Weber Citizen's United group was created in July by 4 concerned citizens who were worried about proposed development they learned was coming into their neighborhood.  I don't actually remember how I was added to the group but I remember learning for the first time about The Lofts project and the concerns with it.  I knew the general plan was underway, and having heard about the concerns that comes with mixed use in other communities, I started commenting and asking questions.  The SWCU grew exponentially over then next 6 weeks, going from under 30 when I joined to over 900 in 6 short weeks.   In that time period I became a frequent poster and began learning more and more about many happenings going on in the city.  I started attending all the meetings and telling others how it went.  

No one in the facebook group had ever talked to me about running for office.  I was toying with the idea of doing a write-in for a few days, but knowing how difficult it would be to not be on the ballot- and the extra work I would have to do to catch up and get my name out there, I wasn't sure about it.   One morning I woke up and realized that if I didn't do anything, I would regret it.  Simply put, I could not not try.  I went to city office that morning, took a deep breath, and filled out the paperwork.  

My plans were to not tell anyone until after the long weekend (Labor Day).  However word got out much quicker than I anticipated.  I told a few members of the group the following day, and more members of the group later that night.  It was news to all of them and I honestly didn't know if I would have their support or not.  Choosing to run for office was my decision alone and no one in the South Weber Citizen's United Group had anything to do with it in any form.

2.  Why are you a moderator of the SWCU Facebook group?
This decision came about when the number of the group climaxed very quickly.  At the time only one moderator was available and learned that it wasn't going to be possible to keep up on everything.  Because I was active on the page and often checking in, I was asked to be a moderator.  If I make it into office however, I will be removed as moderator and someone else will take my place. 

3. If you get into office, will you be the leader of the SWCU Facebook group?

I think this question comes because a lot of my initial support for office did come from this Facebook group.  However, the SWCU Facebook group is not a collective whole.  There are few, if any, things every single person agrees with in the group.  The SWCU is simply a place where citizens can come to get information about the doings and going ons of South Weber City and ask questions.  Currently it has 1,000 members.  You would be hard pressed to find something everyone agrees on in a group that big!  

It is a great asset in gaining the voice of people who were previously untapped - particularly that of younger families who because of family responsibilities and/or careers are not able to attend every meeting, but still want to be involve and included in public matters.  This has been a great thing for our city! We have unprecedented numbers and comments at our meetings in large part because of the Facebook group.  If I make it into office, I still plan to continue getting information to this Facebook group about things coming up in the city and reach out to as many citizens as possible.  My goal has always been to get correct and factual based information to the residents so they can make informed comments and suggestions back to city officials.  I plan to continue that avenue.  But it certainly won't be the only one.  I have met face to face many, many residents.  I have been invited into homes with groups of people to answer questions.  I have also met a great deal of residents at events the SWPCA has put on and hope to continue to reach out in that format.  It is also why I created this blog.  I understand a lot of people aren't on Facebook, and don't want to be.  I wanted them to have the ability to get the same information as well.  If I am elected, I hope to branch out the way we are currently reaching out to our residents so we can get more people involved and informed.  

4.  What is your stance on development within South Weber, especially high-density housing?

I understand we can't stop development, and we must always honor a property owner's right to develop their land if they wish.  But we also have a responsibility to take into consideration those of the neighbors and residents of that property that will be directly impacted by development.  We can be wise with our growth.  I personally don't feel we should add any more high-density zones to our general plan and have opposed every HDH zone on our proposed general plan.  While offering different types of housing and diversity is important, I feel we already have it.  We have townhomes, condos, apartments, and single family homes.  South Weber is a small town, and I want to keep it that way.  I believe moving forward we need to be very wise about the developments that will be coming into our city.  We need to seriously consider the impacts it will have on all aspects of our city, not just the parcel of land it sits on.  We need to consider the rising costs developments will have to our public safety, roads and utlities.  I would like to revisit our city codes, namely are units per acre in each zone, development agreements and conditional use permits and form based code.  We can do better to make sure we are attracting the type of development we want, vs. seeing what a developer will bring to us.  

5. What do you think about South Bench Drive? 

When I very first began studying our general plan in June and heard about a connection to Layton I like the idea of the convenience.  However, after hours upon hours upon hours of research, I have decided that convenience is a rotten apple, South Bench Drive being possibly the most rotten possible.  This road is intended to be a major corridor through our city.  The amount of traffic this will bring to our city is phenomenal, and it will not be local traffic only.   The more I learned about the proposed South Bench Drive, the more concerned I became.  I have worked tirelessly to get that information out to the citizens so everyone can be fully aware of the impact this road will have on our city.  

But what about other local road options to Layton?  I will be honest, currently I'm not convinced.  Every option we have of a connection, comes with serious risks and concerns; slope stability, contamination and costs just being a few.  Even connecting at 1900 E seems like the cost is too great.  It is a north facing road.  The plowing and snow removal of that road will fall to the property tax of the residents.  It is very steep.  Also a developer won't pay to do this road, so it will be on tax payers dime,  At this time, I haven't seen a good option where the concerns of this connection do not heavily outweigh the costs.

6. How can the city be more transparent? 

I think there are lots of avenues the city staff and elected officials can use that are currently not being utilized.  The city facebook, website, email list and the newsletter are just a few of these.  I would like to see live videos, a youtube channel, monthly or weekly checkins from city council members and mayor on a public site all used.  I praise the city for their recent efforts on this.  I would also like to see more citizens on committees to help offer suggestions and learn about processes and issues the public isn't usually aware of.  I think the time of expecting people to be involved solely by coming to the meetings has passed.vvIn an age where we have so many viable options of sharing information, we should be utilizing every avenue we can.  It is inexpensive and not terribly time consuming.  I think surveys and polls are great options, but only if the residents know they even exist.  We need to do better to communicate with the residents on every front we have available.

7.  Does it count if I write you in?  How accurate does it need to be?

Yes! Writing me in WILL count! I am the only offical and registered write-in candidate.  Because of that, it means any time your write anything in that line it will be compared to my name.  So as long as it is close and legible, it will count.  I have been asked if 'sassy blond chick' will work, and I'm not sure that one will - but maybe 'Hayley Alberts - the sassy blond chick' will.  :-)   

I am 3 months late to this race, and my name is not on the ballot.  Believe me, no one realizes this disadvantage more than me!  I hope my hard work thus far shows how willing and able I am to serve this city.  I feel I can bring a lot to the table and I feel I can help make sure our future vision of South Weber City is realized.  I am dedicated to it!  I have been a candidate for 42 days.  In that time I have done 45 posts, helped put on 3 events with the SWPCA - The Park-n-Protest, The Town Hall Style Meeting with Mayor Jo and The South Bench Drive Viewing Party.  I have attended every single Planning Commission Meeting and City Council Meeting since July and done recaps for citizens who weren't able to make it.  I have done many live videos, my most popular being the one who helped citizens fill out the general plan survey and have met with many people in their homes.   I have countless emails to the current city council, mayor and staff learning and understanding things better and many more from residents.  I love this city, and I want to protect it and serve it.  I would love your vote and your support.

Mail In Ballots are here!!

How do you write-me in?  How accurate does my name need to be?  It's all in the weird live video below! Sorry for the connectivity issues!

For those who would prefer to vote in person, the Family Activity Center will be a polling location on November 5th.  There will also be a drop box located at city hall.  

Get informed, get involved, VOTE!

Recap: City Council Meeting 10.15.2019

Alright my peeps, I have 5 pages of notes from tonight's meeting. I tend to like details, but some people want it to be quick so I never know how much or little to say!

We had Judge Memmot sworn in and I am happy to have a judge here for our city. Our Youth City Council was also there to be sworn in. I thought it was pretty cool the YCC takes the same oath the judge did. If anyone is interested, the YCC is for kids 14-18, they will be accepting applications in the fall. They have done a great job! They were a great asset to our breakfast with Santa, the Easter Egg hunt and Country Fair Days. I think it's awesome we have this in our city. Our Judge said that he was also a YCC, which I thought was cool.

We had about 31 people join us out our meeting tonight and had 10 comments. Huge thanks to Jeffrey Ray Judkins who live streamed this meeting. It is on the South Weber Citizen's United Facebook Page if you would like to watch it there. I encourage you to listen to the audio of this meeting that should be available tomorrow. Most of the public comments centered around concerns about South Bench Drive - namely the slopes, the contamination, the traffic and the noise, increase in crime, reasons for the feelings of disconnect and lack of transparency, and concerns about 475 and the stop sign.

Some of the council wanted to address some items before closing public comment. Angie Hyer said the sensitive lands and easements is being looked into. Kent Hyer wanted to let the citizens know he shares of lot of our concerns. He said that as many people were at our meeting tonight is how many people he has had tell him the opposite of what we are saying. He wants us to focus on connectivity in the city. He was in the upstairs room of the fire department when the fire happened and saw what a mess it was having everyone trying to get to the elementary and he really feels strongly we need to look into connecting our roads especially by the elementary. He praised the mayor for all her hard work and dedication to the city and wanted it known how many grants and good things she has done for our community. She works very hard. He said a lot of this are projections only and we will go through things with a fine tooth comb probably even better than we would have if we hadn't gotten involved and thanked him for that. Blair asked us to just be patient for a couple more weeks (when they can discuss the general plan) so they can prove to the citizens that we have heard you. Mayor Jo said that officials are elected to put a plan into place and give it to the public. The process is working (that of public comment). She asked us to please know she has no agenda.

The next item on the agenda was the line for Cottonwood Drive line. For those who don't know this is located in Uintah on the other side of 84. It's about 1/2 mile of road that is actually in South Weber because it is on the south side of the river. This line needs to be upgraded from a 6" to an 8" per state code. It was recently found to be deficient for fire flow and with the development coming in, will actually need to be a 10" for adequate fire flow. It is on our capital facilities plan (the budget for large expense items that only happen once) but not until 2026. Because of the development coming in (Riverside RV Park) it was bumped up to be addressed now. There was a lot of discussion on this. I personally feel the city council was very thorough at understanding the issue and the concerns about the amount at hand and gave it a great deal of thought. It is something that needs to be done, and it is something that was budgeted for up to a point, but doing this upgrade now means one of the other upgrades we had planned to do this year won't happen. In the end the council decided to table this for now until we can get bids back. The developer will work with staff and will pay for the engineering of the line upgrade. The council will come back to it beginning of December and see if the bids are close to the estimate The one important thing to note is that this development is a little bit unique because we will see the impact fees come in at a lump sum when the building permits are issued since it will all be done at the same time. This will be a significant amount of money for the city as well. (we get impact fees when building permits are issued, so a subdivision won't come in a lump sum because some lots may sit for years before impact fees are set - hopefully that is. correct - I clarified it with Brandon Jones after the meeting. )

Reports:

Mayor Jo said she went to a meeting for more grants in active-ness...(is that a word?). Grants for lots of cool things like bouldering, hiking, kayaking, rock climbing and such. I told her we need to put a kayak park at the fisherman's access with these funds! I think that would be awesome!!

Merv has requested an analysis from Davis County Sheriff's Department for crime rates over the last 5 years. They will compile that and present it soon.

Angie wanted it put on the agenda to rename the part of South Bench Drive currently under construction to help alleviate confusion.

Wayne wants to address the stop sign on 475 asap. He suggested moving it up closer so people can see it or putting a double stop sign on each side. He also said that he is a VERY firm no on SBD and will not now or ever vote for a road up our slopes.

There was so more discussion about next week's meeting. Audio is a problem outside of city hall. They are. still working on that. They are also working on an agenda of sorts because there is so much information needed to go over.

Phew! Hope it helps! Let me know if you have any questions! #swmorethan20

Park Acreage & Our Max Buildout Population...is there an error?

**Update** I have received an email from the Mayor that was forwarded on to me from city engineer Brandon Jones:

"Mayor, I read Hayley’s email.  I have already mentioned to David that I think we need to review and revise the population projection section.  It sounds like we also need to verify that we have the correct numbers showing up for parks and trails.  In general, I think the Staff needs to go through in detail everything in the General Plan that has numbers to verify that any projection has good supporting documentation and analysis.

Thanks,
Brandon Jones "

I will keep you updated.  


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


As I mentioned in this Meeting Recap post for City Council last week, I commented about the possible errors to our park acreage and max buildout population.  I have sent the following email to our mayor, city council and planning commission but wanted to share it here for any who would also like to look into this.  I will post any responses I get when they come. 

Hello Mayor, Planning Commissioners and City Council,

Per my comments in the city council meeting last week, I was asked to send more information about my findings so it can be further looked into.  Let me know what your thoughts are and if I got this correct.  

To begin, the 2019 proposed general plan (line 820) states that we have 61 acres of developed parks in several locations.  On line 74, it states that it has 5 parks.  5 parks are also designated on our land use map for 2019.   

Our 2014 general plan land use maps has the same 5 parks.  They are listed as Central Park, Veteran's Memorial, Cherry Farms, Cedar Cove and Canyon Meadows.   However that plan states we have 31.38 acres of parks. It says that it has recently acquired 30 acres in two different parcels for use as a park - however it doesn't notate what parcels those are (pg 21).  It has It is my understanding that retention basins are not developed parks.   I am wondering if someone can clarify where the additional 29 acres of parks from 2014 to 2019 came from? The 2019 plan still lists the exact same parks and I don't see the additional 30 acres the 2014 plan is alluding too in our 2019 plans.   

I understand that some of it could be considered the Pea Vinery Trailhead that is owned by the Davis County Waste Management.  I have heard that this is leased by the city, but I have also heard that this lease never did finalize.  If anyone can clarify that for me, I would appreciate it.  Even still, that proposed section of land according to county records is just under 12 acres.  So the question of the 30 acres couldn't necessarily be that alone.  Furthermore, that acreage currently is not a park and it is not city property.  I think it is unwise to base our acreage off of the speculation that one day it could be.  Until it is an actual developed park, I don't think we should be adding it as park acreage to our general plan.    

The reason I feel this is important is that both our 2014 and 2019 plans states that 10 acres of each 25 acres per 1,000 people should be *developed* recreation areas (not retention basins).  This goes into factoring our total population based on buildable acreage available.  Based on this, we should have a little over 70 acres of parks, yet we have only 31 -- or maybe 61?  We are still short.  

Additionally, according to SB 34, US Census data should be used when determining population buildout.  However, our 2019 plan is basing it off of the 2017 Gardner Policy (4.24).  The census number for 2017 for South Weber is 3.69.  

Coming to the final point, if our acreage for developed parks is not correct then our buildable acreage is also incorrect.  And if our number per household is incorrect as well, then our maximum buildout population is also incorrect.  This in turn will affect they way we choose to develop our lands.  In short, ensuring our max population is correct is **CRUCIAL** to our general plan.  Another thing I would like to have checked is that our buildable acreage excluded any easements that would not allow building.  Since the acreage of developable land is not detailed in our general plan, we can not know if it is factoring in those acres or not.   

Please let me know of your findings or if I need to clarify anything.  I hope that we can have a verified conclusion to these questions before moving forward with adopting our general plan with the max buildout where it currently is.  I also hope we can soon discuss how to bring our developed park acreage up to standards of the National Recreation and Parks Association (10 acres per 1000 people) as it suggests per our own general plan. 

Thank you for your time and, as aways, for all your service to our city,

Hayley Alberts

#SWmorethan20